Monday, March 9, 2015
Community
Response to Community Texts
Your initial response should be in full sentences, paragraph form and should: a. State the text you chose b. State the purpose of the argument. (1 sentence) c. Write a claim defending or challenging this argument. (1 sentence) d. Examine the implications of this argument on today’s society? (2-3 sentences) Then read your classmates posts. Pick two classmate’s to respond to. Your response should include- a. Whether you agree or disagree with their position and why. b. One question to further their thinking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I chose “The Happy Life” by Bertrand Russell. Russell’s purpose in writing this argument is to persuade his readers that in order to be happy, they must rid themselves of self-denial and be spontaneous. In order for an individual to have a truly happy life, they need to do what they think is right for themselves, regardless of what others think of them, be confident in themselves and their actions, and not overthink things. Someone striving for a happy life would not have to worry about what others think of them, and therefore gain self confidence. On the other hand, however, disregarding what others think completely in the quest for happiness can ruin relationships; it is only good if you are selfish to an extent, as Russell said. Happiness would not only benefit the individual, but the community as a whole. It is said to be contagious, and our society could benefit from having an overall happier aura.
ReplyDeleteLiv,I completely agree with your claim. I think its necessary for everyone to act from their heart and make spontaneous decisions in order to be happy. If people let go self-denial then they can also let go of their past. That way they won't over think things just like you said. One question I have is how can you classify a person as good or bad if actions are meant to be spontaneous?
DeleteI agree with you Liv. I think that in order for someone to be truly happy, they must learn to do what is best for themselves, rather than to act in order to please others. Along with this, if we continue to focus on the past and harp over things we could have done differently, we can never really move forward with our lives. One question that came to mind when reading this article was; Could being spontaneous lead to decisions that we would later regret? If so, would this go against the purpose stated by Russell, as regret could lead to self-denial?
DeleteI agree with you Olivia. True happiness comes from the security one has in their actions. By believing that what one does is morally correct then you allow yourself to be more confident in your choices, in turn allowing you to "not suffer from... the failures of unity." Regarding your opinion on relationships; isn't it better to have relationships with those who take happiness from you being happy, in this case agreeing with your morally ambiguous actions?
DeleteOlivia, I agree with your idea that people should not let other’s opinions influence the way they live a happy life; however, they should not completely disregard people’s thoughts completely. If people did not think about how their actions affected others, they could unintentionally hurt someone and cause a problem in the community. So, a person should strive for happiness, but should also take into account society’s happiness. If a person just disregarded the society’s happiness, would he or she eventually become narrow minded and less open to other’s opinions?
DeleteThe Singer Solution to World Poverty
ReplyDeleteSinger's purpose is to rid the world of poverty by arousing people and forcing them to contemplate moral dilemmas and choices that they make every day. World poverty can be eliminated if first world citizens wake up their morality and take out their checkbooks. World poverty is as prevalent today as it has been ever. This would not be the case if people donated the money they would have spent on useless luxuries to charities that help out the poor.
Preston, I agree with your claim because the more people focus on morals and ethnics, the more they will realize whether what there doing is right or wrong. This way people can make better decisions that will benefit the whole community and can put an end to poverty. A question I have is donating to charities will definitely provide aid and food, but what about an education?
DeletePreston, I agree with your claim because the more people focus on giving to others, and the less they focus on their own wants, the easier it would be to rid the world of poverty. Also, being more generous would not only benefit those on the receiving end, but it would help those on the giving end become more mature morally, and give them a sense of happiness for helping others. However, there is so many areas in need of help, such as food, shelter, and education: how could it be ensured that all aspects in need of help get the help they deserve?
DeleteI agree with your claim Preston. I think that humans tend to be very materialistic. Rather than aiming to help others who are in need, we tend to be self-centered and focus on our own wants. This raises the question; Is donating money to charities to help those in need around the world enough to make a difference? Or must other actions be taken, such as sending humanitarian volunteers to underdeveloped countries to educate children and provide medical care?
DeleteI agree with Preston. It is very easy for the majority of Americans to write a check of a smal but decent sum of money to donate to one of many charities that help the less fortunate. Would action and time be equivalent to money in this situation? For example, is donating $200 equally as helpful as doing community service?
DeletePreston, I agree with your claim, as many people are focused on monetary items. We live in a time where excess luxury is sought out by many people, and few are willing to use their money on others. If we start opening our hearts (in conjunction with our bank accounts) we could not only live in a more "meaningful" and "heartfelt" society, but also one in which certain problems can be more effectively solved. Do you think we should place more an emphasis on increasing the use of our morals, or use of money towards solving problems?
DeletePreston I definitely agree with your claim. I think that in America many people live in situations that make it very difficult to donate loads of money to charities, when they can barely support themselves. But this should not stop people from wanting to at least put some effort into helping those who are less fortunate. If everyone was to spend a few hours a year helping the world around them would that help the fight against world hunger?
DeletePreston, though you pose an interesting theory, I disagree with some of your viewpoints. The concept of eliminating poverty entirely is virtually impossible. Aside from the fact that we do not and will never live in a utopia, poverty is a status that will forever be “prevalent,” simply because of individual work ethic and drive. Certainly an ascribed status can hinder a person's success both financially and socially. In this case, I am all for donation of money to such charities helping these individuals. But this philanthropy should be exclusive to such organizations. Most people who are in the upper class are those who have succeeded academically and those who have gotten lucky. Many in poverty are those who were not as into their studies and did not or could not pursue secondary education. And is donating to the poor always such a great idea? Sure it's morally right, but is it logically right? Again, many people in poverty suffer from drug abuse, alcoholism, and drug addiction. We see all too often people receive a second chance through financial aid but succumb to these temptations. It can sometimes cause more harm than help. So the statement that “poverty can be eliminated if first world citizens wake up their morality and take out their checkbooks” is inaccurate. Mo’ money, mo’ problems.
DeleteI read “The Happy Life” by Bertrand Russell. Russell purpose in writing this argument was to explain that the only way to truly be happy is if a person gets rid of all their self-denial. Self-denial just reminds a person of their past experiences and mistakes. I believe Russell is correct in this argument because in order to be happy, a person’s actions must be spontaneous and must be from the heart. If one person acts spontaneously and makes the right decisions, then that will reflect on the whole community. People won’t be self-absorbed if the whole community is happy as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI agree that self-denial holds people back from being happy because you shouldn't let what happened in the past dictate what your actions are in the present day. The ast experiences and mistakes need ot be reconciled with because they can hold you back from being the complete person you are. I just think that it is very difficult for entire communities to be happy as there are infinite amounts of individual situations at play that can affect a person's happiness. How should we try to help ourselves and others achieve their happiness? Is it possible for everyone to be completely happy?
DeleteReeya, I totally agree. I think that keeping hold of past emotions and past failures can lead a person no where. How can one be happy if all they have in the back of their mind is self doubt? You have to erase bad memories to make room for new ones. Also everybody makes mistakes, everybody has those days, nobody's perfect and so if you fail the first time it should push you to do better instead of hold you back. You are also right in the fact that if someone makes the right decisions then it benefits the whole community, and one can only do that if they are happy and have an optimistic mind set. But, how would one overcome self-denial, especially if they have a lot holding onto them and pulling them back from being happy? Who would help them the most, people around them or themselves?
DeleteReeya, I agree with your points concerning self-denial. In order for us to truly embrace our own happiness we must stop doubting ourselves and dwelling on past events that are unchangeable. Of course learning from your past is essential in terms of self growth, however it is downright unhealthy to allow your past to consume you. As Russell says it is important to put our happiness before the happiness of others, as selfish as that may sound. Wouldn't you agree that in order to fully satisfy the people around you, you must possess a sense of content with your life? In my opinion, in order to be completely invested in our love and compassion for other people, we must first reform ourselves and find our own happiness.
DeleteSimilar to many fellow classmates above me, I also agree with Peter's point here. Tom Stoppard once said, "A healthy attitude is contagious but don't wait to catch it from others. Be a carrier." When you look at a happy person, it reminds you of why you should also be happy, and I think that should continue to spread throughout society. However, I believe that the main key to being happy is mainly yourself, as no one can let you determine whether or not you are happy, as Russell said to put your happiness first before anyone else's, and then being able to spread that integration between self and society to others. Do you think that there would be a time in society where everyone can be truly happy?
DeleteI agree with you Reeya when you said "in order to be happy, a person’s actions must be spontaneous and must be from the heart." American society is focused more so on the individual, whereas other cultures focus on unity between everyone else and they put others before themselves. We all our our own critics as well as our own motivators, however, others around us can have a huge impact on where we see ourselves going in the future. Learning from mistakes is the only way to fix them. A question to think about: If we each had the chance to make one person happy in the world, who would we pick and why?
DeleteBecca Russo
Reeya, I really enjoyed your point about leaving the past in the past. As someone else said, everybody makes mistakes and if you let those follow you around your whole life then you will never be happy. Having this constant weight on your shoulders you will refrain from spontaneous acts. If everyone was to let go of the past and live in the present, would people still base there opinions on the pasts of others?
DeleteI agree that it is important to leave the negative in the past (unless it causes an individual to be naive). I have a story that relates to what everyone is saying. Every week I visit nursing homes around town to sit down and talk to some of the veterans that live in the homes. I learn a lot about their military service, their cultures, and their personalities. One day at my visit at Buckland Court, a veteran I was sitting next to started a side conversations. He said to me, “Now I’m going to be serious with you for a moment. I’ve lived a great life, why? Life is too short to dwell on the mistakes we made. We need to move on, why? Because what happened happened and that’s it; we move on. Listen, we were not put on this earth to worry, to feel guilty about anything, or to work ourselves to death. We were put here to have a good time.” This really stuck with me. Though I know this wisdom applies to an extent, but its true in my opinion. And I agree with Kalee in that it takes a level of self-harmony to pursue a healthy relationship with another. Though sometimes we need other people (could be in a relationship) to figure ourselves out, I think that it helps to check yourself before your check someone else. That being said, isn't it fair to say that you need self-denial to ultimately achieve self confidence?
DeleteReeya, I completely agree with the statement you made about how spontaneous actions from the heart cause a person to be happy. If a person does something from the bottom of his heart, without anyone telling him he has to take that action, then he becomes genuine in the eyes of society. This is because people will know that he wants the betterment of society and is looking to help the society before he helps himself. One question to consider in this situation could be is there a line that should be drawn to selflessness?
DeleteI read "The Happy Life" by Bertrand Russell. Russell argues against the philosophy of self-denial, and instead insists that the "happy life" is reached through a "selfish" kind of love, where one actively seeks his or her own happiness. I would agree with Russell, that one should prioritize their own happiness before the happiness of others, that one who is happy and in good-spirits gives of more positive vibes. If we were all to focus on first obtaining a certain degree of happiness for ourselves, our society would become a happier and more benevolent place. In reality, balancing one's own happiness with the happiness of others, and finding the line between being just selfish enough and too selfish is difficult to establish.
ReplyDeletePeter, I agree with your claim because I believe that your own happiness should be your first priority. That being said, it is important to value the happiness of others as well, however, one must exercise self-discipline and know when to say 'no' to prevent themselves from being taken advantage of by others, as well as to prevent themselves from going too far in the quest for their own happiness. In the article, Russell talked about spontaneity and selfishness both being important for a 'happy life', but which one is more important on the quest for a happy life?
DeleteI respectfully disagree with you Peter. I believe there should be a balance between seeking your own happiness and helping others with their happiness. I think this because sometimes making somebody else happy is so emotionally and intellectually rewarding that it can in turn make you happy. I know personally my mother has sometimes sacrificed her own personal happiness for mine, and when she reflects on it later she usually says it was worth it. She says that seeing me happy, masks over whatever personal sadness she got from sacrificing her own happiness. There should definitely be a balance because sometimes when you sacrifice your own happiness for the happiness of someone you love, its worth the same. This balance may be hard to find, but it is better to try and fail a couple times before getting it, instead of sticking to the extreme side of selfishness. Also, in regards to society becoming a more benevolent place, I don't think this is true because selfishness in regards to happiness can lead to lack of companionship and jeopardize human relationships. A question to think about is do relationships determine what people perceive as happiness?
DeleteI agree with you, Peter, because I believe that people are their best selves when they are happy. I know that when I’m in a good mood, I’m a lot more motivated to help out or give my best effort than if I’m always working to please without taking into account my own happiness. Happiness is contagious, and a smile can go a long way to brighten someone’s day, so if someone is genuinely happy, this will rub off on the people around them. Additionally, I think that as a society, we often confuse “success” with happiness. When it comes to success, be it through money, a career, or a family; self-denial is usually necessary in order to achieve it. However, happiness can be created through the simplest of things, and if we are always denying it in order to help others find it, how could anyone ever really be happy?
DeleteI agree with Iram here because I think that your own happiness can come from those around you. If we surround ourselves with those who are happy, it is proven that we tend to have a more positive outlook on life. Your point about our world becoming more benevolent is good, however, I think if we all put others needs before ourselves, we would find that we receive more back in return. Maybe not tangible things, but rather the intangibles like a happy outlook or feelings of welcoming from others around us. A question to think about is: In our society, do you happiness primarily revolve around money and financial standings?
DeleteBecca Russo
Peter, I agree with you with the idea that one should focus on their own happiness, but i feel that rather than solely focusing on this, they should find a balance between their own happiness and the happiness of others, as Iram had said. relationships between individuals can both further or lessen the happiness in one's life, and if a person only focuses on their own happiness, how can they make beneficial relationships with others? if they seek out relationships in which they are based on their own happiness, would that not then in turn affect the other person's own happiness? Do you think that in regards to relationships with others, that people should still put their own happiness first?
DeletePeter, I share your opinion that we must get our own priorities straight before considering others. In terms of happiness, you made an interesting point that people who already achieved self happiness automatically spread happiness throughout a society due to good vibes and spirits emitting from them. That already solves the problem of taking in consideration of others and balancing between the line of selfishness. But like Iram said putting selfishness behind and making sacrifices for others also brings happiness. What is more worth it? Selfishness or sacrifices? Is one more moral than the other?
DeleteI chose to read “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” by Peter Singer. Singer argues that it is the individuals responsibility to give a portion of their income to those who are struggling, in the efforts to better the world. I agree with Singer that we should lend a hand and help those who are less fortunate than us. We, as Americans, tend to be very materialistic in the sense that the things we have take over our focus and attention. This all consuming power takes away from our ability to reach out and help others, as it causes us to become self-centered. If we all worked together and donated to help those in need, the rates of poverty, disease, and starvation around the world could potentially decrease. We also have a tendency to judge others whose materialistic wants take precedent over the well being of others. Yet, we are blindsided by the fact that while we may not have experience similar situations, we have still come face to face with a chance to help those in need, and denied it. If we continue down this path, the world will be focused solely on the individual, erasing any sort of communal bond.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you because we as a society wouldn't and couldn't succeed without supporting and recieving the support of others. Your comment about how materialistic we as Americans are is unfortuantely true and does impede our ability to help others. However, I didn't agree with the author's comparison between choosing to flip the switch to save a child and choosing to donate online. I thought that that was too large a margin. I just can't imagine anyone choosing car over a child in danger. We definitely need to consider some of our decisions about how we spend our money, but how will we ever know when we have given enough? Can that amount ever be met or should we always give as much as our incomes allow?
DeleteI completely agree with you when you highlighted the human race's hypocrisy of looking down at those who do not help others, but not helping them ourselves. People may be in denial of this fact, but that does not change the fact that it is still very significant. Your last sentence I do not agree with at all. It is a very opinionated clincher that is out of line, in my opinion. I do not see communal societies such as Japan ever becoming individualistic. They have had the community first for years and that philosophy is ingrained into their culture. Do you think people will value themselves more or their belongings more in the future?
DeleteI chose In Wesminter Abbey by John Betjeman whose purpose was to expose the misguided and borderline hypocritical thoughts of the individual’s thoughts when under the threat of war. His argument conveyed through his satirical poem was that people become selfish when faced with war and don’t mind if others are in trouble as long as they aren’t harmed. Since the context of this poem is World War II, I disagree with what the author was implying because there are so many stories of people putting themselves on the line to save others, primarily the Jewish people who were in extreme danger. The people that hid entire families were thinking of the good of others, not just themselves, their shares, or their “luncheon date”. Since I don’t have any personal experience with this issue beyond what I read in books, I can’t make judgements but I don’t think and I hope that in this day in age we would ban together to help each other; especially with the prevalence of programs like the Red Cross. I would sincerely hope that Betjeman’s argument wouldn’t apply in today’s society.
ReplyDeleteMary-Kate, I do agree with you in that there are exceptions to the general rule, and that hopefully humans would take a more united and benevolent approach to any conflict in today's society. I would suspect that Betjeman was aware of these exceptions and their actions, and that he chose to address a mindset that was common to the masses and not the few, in hope of raising awareness. Addressing the wrongs of the masses will generate more attention than praising the actions of a few, it is easier to pick out the problems than to find praise. Would you agree that it is simpler to find patterns in a larger sample size, than a smaller one?
DeleteI agree with you Mary Kate, that there are always those who aren't selfish in times of tragedy but in the general sense, there will always be the ideas of self-preservation and self-importance in war. The United States entered World War II 2 years after it started. We had the idea that the war was a European affair and that we shouldn't harm our own citizens and resources for a war that was not ours. We put aside the ideas that innocent civilians were dying and corrupt ideals were being enforced so that we could stay in the safety of our homes.The United States only entered World War II after attacks were specifically made towards them as a country. If Pearl Harbor wasn’t attacked then the US wouldn't have felt threatened, they wouldn't have felt that their safety was in jeopardy and wouldn't have entered the war. However, this leads to the question if self preservation which requires selfishness is more important than helping others?
DeleteI disagree with you, Mary-Kate, purely based on the fact that history is prone to repeat itself when controlled by the same types of people. Although it is a nice thought to think that the satire used in Betjeman's poem is not necessary in today's society, humans tend not to change their ways. Even though the extent of what happened regarding the Holocaust is not likely to happen again due to awareness, people today are still standing idly by as children starve and families collapse due to financial issues. How far away are the generalized behaviors of people today than they were in the 1940s?
DeleteI see both your side Mary-Kate, and Betjeman's side. I understand how you would disagree with him because like the family that hid Anne Frank and her family, there will always be people who put other people before themselves. I'm sure there were many soldiers that took bullets and dies for their fellow soldiers in saving lives. But I also agree with Betjeman, and honestly I probably agree with him more, and here's why. In scary situations when you have the option to save yourself, or save a stranger, or even someone you might know, typically the person will save themselves. I know we all think about taking a bullet for others and think that if put in that situation that we would be a good person and do the hero thing; however it's not realistic. There's also much anger that comes with war that tends to make people selfish and think they are worth saving over others, do you think you yourself would be able to put someone else's life in front of yours if faced in that situation?
DeleteI read “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer. Throughout the piece, Singer argues that by not donating to charities, and by insteading spending our salaries on luxuries, we are inadvertently preventing the lives of the poor from being spared. He claims that as citizens who enjoy numerous luxuries throughout our lives, we have the responsibility to give up these privileges to save the lives of those in poverty. I agree with Singer’s claim to an extent. I feel like we do have a responsibility to come to the aid of those who are impoverished and in need however, this, in my opinion, is simply a short-term solution to a bigger issue. Rather than giving purely monetary donations to various charities which, let’s say, will then purchase anywhere from a days to a months worth of food and supplies to a family in need, we need to start donating our time and services to helping people create a self-sustaining society. We need to provide the resources and skills needed to truly improve the lives of the poor around the world. For example, last year a physical therapist came in to talk to our english class about a charity event he participates in yearly in which he and team of other physical therapists go over to Peru and provide medical services for amputees as well as help to train some of the doctors in the area. It is essential to implement more programs such as this one so that these poor countries can begin to improve their own state independently. We cannot rely solely on money to “save the day”, we need to begin to truly invest ourselves in improving the world so that long-term and substantial change occurs.
ReplyDeleteKalee, I completely agree with your thoughts. My response was similar to yours in that it also called for service. I thought that by just contributing money, we we setting a bad example for those on the brink of poverty to give up their battles at the expense of the hard work of Americans. Do you think that the morality of the average American will push them to donate their time, realistically speaking? I mean, I think that it is even more to ask for than money because it would mean that they take time off from their daily lives. Money on the other hand is already there and can be donated in seconds. How realistic is this expectation?
DeleteI read the Singer Solution to World Poverty by bioethicists Peter Singer. The purpose of the argument is to make the audience aware that world poverty can be solved by able individuals sacrificing certain luxuries. The author cites hypothetical situations to which he compares the actions of people in reality to. For example, he examines Bob who needs to make a decision to save a child’s life or save his Bugatti from an off track train. The author give specific situations and then turns it into a general idea about humanity and mankind as a whole. He discusses how in exact situations, people are very quick to choose saving a life over their own material benefits but when it comes to reality there is hesitation and lack of care. To defend the authors claim many would add that by helping those in poverty we are providing the world with more personnel who have the ability to succeed and innovate for the benefit of society as a whole. Something that I would like to emphasize is that while yes everyone should give and try to help world poverty, there should be a greater pressure on the wealthiest percent of the population. Not only should they donate money out of the kindness of their hearts, but governments should enforce donations as much as they do taxes. The world can only benefit from lack of poverty.
ReplyDeleteIram, I agree that there it would be beneficial to help, and enable as many people as possible. However, I am not sure that the greatest pressure should be on those of the highest-income, the wealthiest percent of the population. I would contend that there are plenty of wealthy persons who donate and work to end poverty - probably the same percentage of wealthy persons donate as the percentage of middle-class persons. While they do have more resources at their disposals, is it really fair to demand exponentially more help from them, when they likely are contributing far more than everyone else already?
DeleteI agree that by helping those in poverty the world is provided with more people who will be able to innovate for the benefit of society. Although, it doesn't guarantee innovation or success, it is merely the potential for it, there is a chance no good may come out of it. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be donations made to those in poverty, I agree that they should receive funds for health reasons. But is it really worth supplying money for the sole reason being "potential" for innovation?
DeletePeter,
DeleteI agree with your point. The more affluent people in society do not have any more of an obligation to help solve poverty than the common citizen. Their money is the result of years of hard work and for that reason, they should be entitled to the luxuries of life or the resources that they have complied. Money doesn't seem like a promising solution, at least not in the long term. With that said, are there any alternatives?
I chose "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor" by Garrett Hardin. Hardin's purpose was to argue that by helping economically unstable nations we are only furthering their dependency, in turn lessening their ability to repair their less than optimal situation. Taking into consideration the "lifeboat" situation our world is in today, by aiding the poorer nations in the ways that we are and to the extent that we are these poorer nations will struggle within their own economies as well as those in the world around them. Every day people across the world are donating money towards various charity organizations to provide items such as educational books, vaccines, and food. Although these items do produce beneficial effects in the short-term, consequences can arise later in the forms of overpopulation and “tragedy of the commons” if other measures are not taken. These interferences do bring about the ethical question of whether or not better-off countries are acting as ‘gods’ in the situation, but teaching a man to fish is better than giving him a fish.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with Amy. As the saying goes, it is better to yeah a man to fish than to give him a fish. Instead of just constantly doing things for the poor, it would be in our best interests to teach them life skills needed to sustain the help we give them. For example, givin medical training instead of just shipping out medicine. What are some possible ways that we can "teach a man to fish" instead of just "providing the fish?"
DeleteI agree with you Amy. I think that it isn't right to ignore the needs of those countries around us, but that giving them money and supplies in the short term is not the action that should be taken. The way to meaningfully impact the future of these people would be to educate or help them to find long term solutions. But to most people it would seem easier for them to donate money to a charity and see it as checking off a moral check box of having done some good, as opposed to finding someway to meaningfully impact the future of these people. So realistically do you think that we will be able to convince people to spend more time and energy in trying to find these meaningful ways instead of simply donating money?
DeleteAmy, I agree that we may be making these poorer countries more dependent, but it is our civil responsibility to help them in need. Without our assistance, millions would die and countries would collapse. Our only hope is to establish controls and provide a path for countries to gain independence. While donating to countries in need makes them "weaker" in some respects, it is the moral and logical thing to do.
DeleteAmy, I agree that donating things such as food and clothing may only be beneficial in the short term, since of course they do not last a long time, but I think that the effects of not helping are worse than the effects of helping. If people did not donate, many people would suffer consequences such as deeper poverty, illnesses, hardship, and death. I agree that setting them up with good schools, industries, and government would be ideal, but until we have the capability to do that I think that donating money is the best we can do.
DeleteVeronica McCullough
ReplyDeleteI read "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor" by Garrett Hardin. His claim is that there are the poor people of society which make up most of the population, and then there's the rich population, and sometimes its not the best idea to share the resources with the less fortunate. This pertains a lot to society now a days because I feel like in our world the more powerful countries control most of the resources and so there becomes a lack of resources that are expedient in keeping up other countries. As a result food is sent over to the poorer countries to keep them going, and as soon as they get the resources they use them all up, and since there's more poor than rich the resources go quicker. There's no balance because the poorer countries population grows much faster than the rich population and eventually all the resources would run out. Which is why I agree that we should limit the amount we give for the purpose of keeping the population leveled, but at the same time give enough to the poor communities to help them just pass by.
I chose to respond to “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer. Singer argues that not donating money to children in need is no different than willingly letting that child die in front of you. Singer is right in his argument that there is far more Americans can do to support basic needs of children if they were to give up material things. No amount of Sarah McLachlan commercials can convince all Americans to hand over their hard earned cash to help someone in need, however over consumption has been decreasing as “minimalism” is trendy. If Americans were to commit the $200 that Singer recommends to help save a different child’s life every month, one of the biggest problems in the world could be solved within a couple years. Additionally, easily curable diseases could be eradicated with the proper funding. If the “Singer Solution” were to really take effect, it would take the world by storm.
ReplyDeleteMackenzie, I fully agree with the points you said in your post and how you explained that no matter how many times they were to show them to the American public, it wouldn't make a difference in making Americans give up material things for someone else in need. While I do believe that the Singer Solution would be very successful, I don't think it would be accomplished easily. Telling Americans to give up their salaries on luxuries and using that money to donate is just as hard as any other thing you are trying to take away from someone, like a child with a toy. If the Singer Solution would to take effect, it could change the world in a whole, new drastic way, but it'll be a while before we get to that point where almost everyone contributes.
DeleteTherefore my question to you is, taking into consideration their human nature, do you think that every single American would eventually oblige to something like the Singer Solution in the future?
DeleteMackenzie, I completely agree with your points and I believe that if Singer's solution were to go into effect it would greatly help the children all over the world. With such an easy and widespread plan, the affect of disease on children and adults in third world countries could be greatly decreased. By giving up some of our "luxury money" we could easily aid those in need, and save lives, instead of buying material items. Is it easier to say that we are going to donate our money, but harder to implement the plan?
DeleteI agree with you, Mackenzie, when you say that even though over consumption is decreasing, it's still going to take some work to make Americans donate their money to other people in need. This is even though these Americans can make a large difference just by giving up a few "wants". I think that many people would say that they're not able to donate when asked to, especially because of today's economy; however, donating is becoming increasingly popular, just not at as fast of a pace as Singer would prefer. What do you think would need to happen first for the Singer Solution to be widely accepted and used to help end poverty?
DeleteSomeone has to do it, so I'll be that guy. Mackenzie, I respectfully disagree with you. I think that the American government and American corporations do their fair share for developing nations. We have problems here in America that need to be solved. What about all the kids in America that go to bed cold and hungry? What about the poor and uneducated in America?
DeleteMackenzie, I disagree with you also. It is not our fault kids are dying in poor countries, and they are not our responsibility. It is the right thing to do morally, but there is too much ambiguity involving charitable organizations. No one knows exactly where the money goes, and we can't be sure it is being used properly. We need to provide some relief, which we already do excellently, but ultimately focus on problems on the home front. We are responsible for our own citizens first, and many of them are suffering like the rest. The world can't always look to America to come in and save the day. Why should we help those in need in foreign countries when we have needy people in our own?
DeleteI read the poem "In Westminister Abbey" by John Betjeman. Betjeman's purpose in his poem was to convey the idea that individuals are not always what they deem to be like, especially in times of war in which the thoughts and hopes of safety only apply to themselves as individuals, not as the community as a whole. Personally, I find this poem to make a very good point about the relationships between people in society both today and in the past. In reading the poem, I found a direct correlation between the points Betjeman made in his poem and our society today. Recently, we haven't had a war in the U.S. since WWII. However, the recent Ebola outbreak in the world has caused the world to "hope" for the safety of themselves and for others. But I think one cannot truly understand what it feels like to be in the dangerous situation unless one has truly experienced it for them self. For instance, everyone in the U.S. has prayed for the victims of Ebola around the world. However, I think the main reason for this is the fear that Ebola will affect them as individuals, not so much as affect others in society. I feel like the personalities of some people in our community today are like one of the lady in this poem, praying for the victims and then going on their "luncheon date" and continuing their normal lives after feeling better about hoping for the safety of others. Until those individuals have become victims to the dangers of society in this time, I don't believe certain individuals in our society will ever truly be able to pray for the ones who are truly suffering.
ReplyDeleteJason, I'd like to disagree with you on a historical inaccuracy. The U.S. has been actively engaged in multiple conflicts. From 2001 till 2014, the United States was engaged in the War in Afghanistan. Being that the U.S. was engaged in World War II for roughly 4 years (1941-45), it's pretty safe to say the U.S. has been engaged in wars. Sure, ebola is a big deal, don't get me wrong. But how about our troops currently living across oceans and deserts defending our freedom? Let's not forget about that.
DeleteJason, I agree with your point about how people often sympathize for a period of time before returning to their daily (privileged lives). Although this does not relate to war, I think this concept applies to the debates about mental illness. A lot of people agree that mental illness is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, however, often times when they encounter a person who says they have anxiety or depression they pass it off. It is interesting how what we say versus what we will act upon differs, especially in times of crisis. That being said, is sympathy impossible?
DeleteJason, I liked the idea you had about how people are able to dismiss themselves of responsibility to help by "hoping" for the safety of others. I had an opinion along the same lines, and took it as Betjeman was upset with people encouraging war but wanting nothing to do with it. They were asking for protection of themselves, their homes, their communities, women, and their soldiers. However, this is obviously not how war works, and I think the author was trying to point out how ignorant those people were.
DeleteBertrand Russell wrote "A Happy Life." Russell discusses true happiness from a moralistic point of view. Russell argues that to achieve true happiness, one can't be virtuous out of obligation; they must be virtuous to help others and that true happiness is achieved not tough making the one you love completely happy while ignoring yours of, but rather by putting your happiness equal to or even in front of the happiness of others. I agree with Russell because one can't be happy if they always put the happiness of others in front of their own happiness. In today's society, many people do virtuous things because they feel obligated to, but Russell write that this makes the person doing the act a worse person. It is important for us in today's society to help others, but we must do it because we realise that other people need our help, not because society pressures us to.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you, Amy, because only when someone can be pleased with themselves after they have helped someone else, can they truly better that person. Last year we read a passage whose message was you can only love someone as much as you love yourself. Do you think societal pressures to put others before yourself makes people resent helping?
DeleteI agree with you to an extent Jill. I do believe that people should do service to help others and not simply because they feel that it is their responsibility. However, I do not agree that it is right for people to be putting their own happiness far above the happiness of others. This could lead to people becoming arrogant and unwilling to compromise. People who put their happiness as their first priority above their friends happiness won't have friends for much longer, they would be miserable to be around if they were unwilling to compromise and do things that their friends wanted. And for most people, having friends and other people with whom they can feel included is a major part of happiness. So by putting their own happiness first, it could lead to the eventual loss of more happiness in the long run. Do you think that putting your own happiness in the moment will lead to potential decreasing of happiness later down the road?
DeleteI read “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” by Peter Singer. In his piece, he reasons that individuals have the opportunity to help those out who are suffering, however, it takes extreme cases for us to realize that we all could make an impact. I think Singer’s point of helping others is solid, but I don’t completely agree with the rest of his piece. He used the example of Bob, who was put into a situation where he had to decide between his Bugatti and a child’s life. He chose the Bugatti and of course as a society we will look down upon that. Singer argues that these types of events occur on smaller scales every day, such as going out to eat and buying new clothes rather than donating this money to charities to help those in poverty. My parents work hard to do well and provide everything for my family and choose to spend their money on our family’s needs like college and the opportunities I have been given with soccer. They work for their money and what they choose to spend it on is their decision. They provide me with anything I need and even more than that, so I cannot complain. I am not saying if someone is in poverty, it’s their parents’ fault, I just don’t think that he can compare donating money to saving the life of a child first hand. People should be able to have their own decisions on ways to help out others. In Bob’s case, he should’ve saved the child’s life because a car can be replaced but a child’s life cannot unfortunately. Donating to charities can help provide the children with more but it doesn’t ensure that you will save their lives either.
ReplyDeleteBecca Russo
I agree with your position, Becca, because I think this is similar to my own sentiments on putting our own happiness first. Of course helping others is very important and part of our civic duty as citizens of a society, but I also think someone who is not happy with themselves will not be much help to others. Sometimes, helping others requires sacrifices that are too substantial and result in regret or self-pity. Do you think that being self-concerned could lead to selfishness?
DeleteI understand where you are coming from, Becca, however, I think that it's important to acknowledge the other side of the argument. With children dying every day from illness such as Malaria and Polio, there are definitely things people can do, here in America, in order to save their lives. Like mentioned in the article, if a family just gives up going out once a month, even that sum of money could help a child in need. Do you think that it's more important to secure ourselves before we help others?
DeleteI agree that donations do not provide a guarantee of saving someones life but it is a moral thing to do. I disagree with Jeff it is not like American people do not contribute to donations, America is one of the top countries that provide huge amount of aid around the world, I mean if everyone contributed it would definitely increase the amount of aid drastically but people/ families are not held accountable to donations because “enough” is already being done on behalf of the American people. I think America can contribute more in donations but since we are all “set” with aid we can worry about securing ourselves because we are already helping others. Has it been America’s responsibility to provide aid for the entire world? Other countries need to step up. I think that the author should address this problem than targeting the rich and wealthy.
DeleteI read "The Happy Life" by Bertrand Russell. Russell argues against the moralist theory that promotes self-denial because he thinks it leads to self-absorption of constantly trying not to put ones own needs before others. I think he is right because the happiness of the whole society stems from the happiness of the individual. Self-denial is against human nature in itself, because it is only natural for one to think of their own needs first. It is like going on an airplane when the flight attendants tell the passengers that in case of an emergency, you must put your own oxygen mask on before assisting others. If we cannot help ourselves and be truly happy, then we have no business trying to make others feel happy. If we are happy, that will translate naturally to others.
ReplyDeleteI chose "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor" by Garrett Hardin. The purpose of the argument was to convince richer countries that it wouldn't be the wisest decision to try to give away their wealth to try to help poorer countries. I do not agree with Hardin, and I think that people who are better off should not just stand idly by in the face of the suffering of others if they have the ability to help. I think that in America it is easier for people to hear arguments like Hardin's then the argument presented in "The Singer Solution to World Poverty". As they read the argument in perfectly climate controlled homes, Hardin gives them the best of both worlds, he tells them to keep their money, and then hands them justification to satiate their consciences. It would be only too easy in our society to read these statistics and forget that there are suffering men, women, and children just like us that are represented by those numbers. Surely if American citizens and even Hardin himself could see the faces and meet the people behind these unforgiving numbers, they would not stick to such a heartless policy.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a valid point, Tessa, that Hardin feeds his audience exactly what they want to hear: a justification for the belief that they don't need to donate, especially when someone else can do it. It's easy to forget what's happening in the world around you when you aren't directly affected and I'm sure the people not donating would feel very differently if they were living in poverty instead. However, Singer also writes from an extreme point of view in that everyone should donate a significant amount, at least $200, in order to save a child. Do you think this policy is any better in today's society and economy, when Singer equates not donating money with killing a child?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTessa, I agree with you that affluent countries and affluent members of society should be actively involved in helping the impoverished rather than taking no course of action whatsoever. I say this because in America there is approximately 50 million people that live below the poverty line and if we hope to continue to decrease this number it requires that everyone continues to contribute to fighting the problem by giving them money. I also find your point regarding how if people meet these suffering families and bear witness to the conditions they face on a day to day basis, they would not be as likely to just overlook these statistics and their humanitarianism would kick in. Do you think that rather than giving these impoverished people money, it would be more beneficial for both parties involved to help them in other ways, and if so what do you think would prove to be most effective?
DeleteI chose to read "The Happy Life" by Bertrand Russel. The purpose of this piece was to get across to readers that being happy is the key to a good life, and it comes not from constant self denial but from instinctive actions, a man who is freely enjoying the spectacles of life. This perspective that Russel brings forth is essentially correct, if you aren't free in your actions it may ultimately end up restricting you, even though self denial may seem beneficial it doesn't yield the best results. In society this concept will have adverse affects, it could lead to more confidence and success. On the other hand it may also create a negative image, one that is selfish and conceited. It leads to the discussion of whether or not it is more important to do what is right for you or to consider everyone else around you. A lack of self denial can cause broken relationships, but with it you can be prevented from achieving what you want and obtaining happiness.
ReplyDeleteThe text I chose was, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer. The purpose of this argument was to show that people tend to spend money without thinking of how their money could help save someone else’s life. It’s vital for people to donate their money to others who are in need in order for lives to be saved and to give the opportunity for people to have better lives. If people donated their money instead of eating out even once a month, for example, then the lives of children everywhere could be drastically changed. By donating to charities such as Unicef and Oxfam, children can receive life saving vaccines such as the malaria vaccine which can easily prevent them and others around them from contracting the disease. With increased donations of even the smallest amount of money, there can be significant improvement in the lives of children who were born into their poverty and have very little chance of escaping it.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that it is vital for people to donate money to those in need of it. It is crazy how one small change in our lifestyle could save enough money in the long term to make a difference for those that live in poverty. Why does the pressure for donating to help the poor fall on the rich when everyone can supply some funds to help through out a long term process?
DeleteI read "The Happy Life" by Bertrand Russel. The purpose of the argument in this piece was convince the readers that not only a happy life is the equivalent to a good one, but that happiness is found in the pursuit of "natural" actions, rather than self denial. I agree with this argument, as one is truly happy when they are able to freely express themselves in terms of actions, and when they are restrained from doing so true happiness is withheld from them. Today, we live in a society where it is the norm to be like most everyone else, and many are afraid to be themselves, fearing that they may be ridiculed for doing so. Their personal "pursuit of happiness" is hindered, and prevents them from being the happiest they can be. does that mean they will not live a good life? Most likely not, but it still holds them back from being as happy as they can be.
ReplyDeletePat, I agree with you that Russell is correct in asserting that it is necessary to pursue natural actions in order to be happy as an individual. I say this because, as you alluded to, if a person is pressured by society to act in a particular manner, then they can never truly be happy. I also like your point that if you do not actively pursue your own happiness it does not mean that you won't be happy, but rather it means that you will not be as happy as you could potentially be. How do you think that a person can find the balance between being selfish regarding their own happiness and being caring and worried about the happiness of those around you?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe text that I chose to read this week was “The Happy Life” by Bertrand Russell. Russell argues that in order to achieve a happy and good life, it is necessary that a person removes any self-denial from within themselves and that they actively search for their own happiness. I agree with Russell’s assertion because in order for a person to achieve a happy life they must prioritize their own happiness over that of others; regardless of how this is perceived by the people around them. Implementing this philosophy would make our society as a whole more happy, confident and even potentially more successful if people are no longer held back because of others. However, a negative repercussion of this philosophy could be that people would be perceived as being selfish and egocentric. It is essential that a balance be found between having too much regard for others’ happiness and too much for one’s own happiness.
ReplyDeleteI read “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer. In this article, Singer sets out to motivate the reader to take action and donate money out of his/her personal income in order to save a child’s life and make an impact on poverty. I agree that if everyone donates a small amount of money, they can make a large difference but Singer is correct to an extent. He largely states that the public has no excuse to not donate when we can eat out and buy clothing that we want. However, many families aren’t able to easily donate money and the luxuries that they can afford come first to them before donating to a fund helping poor children. This isn’t necessarily morally right, but it’s the way the world largely works. Instead of just having everyone donate a significant amount of money, other programs should be a part of the “solution to world poverty”. Aid programs where it’s easier for people across the ocean to participate in and help would be more convenient to some and this could easily be substituted for donating a sum of money that they are not able to afford.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your position, Zoha, in that if everyone donates a small amount of money, then they can make a large difference. I think this concept is evident in many cases, even with our school raising money for Mrs. Barrett. We were able to raise over $1,000 in just four lunch waves because people gave loose change or a dollar. At the same time, I see where you are coming from regarding the families who aren't able to donate money easily. Should there be a limit of how much money you can donate based on a family's income? Should people who are in these tough situations still be required to donate money, even if its only a couple cents?
DeleteEmily Thompson
ReplyDeleteThe article that I chose to read was "The Happy Life" by Bertrand Russell. The purpose of this article was to propose that the only way that someone can be happy is to remove self denial from their life. I agree with this claim because being spontaneous is vital in everyone's life to be happy. If you worry consistently on what others think of you, you will not learn what makes you truly happy, which is the most important part. As Russell stated, it's two different things to do something because it agrees with your morals than looking to do it for the satisfaction of others. Solely doing things just so others look at you positively will not bring you happiness in life. However, I do believe that in order to keep yourself grounded you must confide in those who you are closest to to gain more confidence in yourself. If everyone was to have faith in their beliefs and morals and worry less about what others thought, the world would be a happier place.
I agree with your position of removing self denial in order to create a happier place, Emily. Many people are concerned with their image in society when they should be worried about what makes themselves happy. It is crucial for you to act because of personal motivation, not for approval from others. Unfortunately, ignoring how others value you is very hard to do. Should there be a balance between how much you do for yourself versus how much you do because of what others will think of you?
DeleteI agree with your position of removing self denial in order to create a happier place, Emily. Many people are concerned with their image in society when they should be worried about what makes themselves happy. It is crucial for you to act because of personal motivation, not for approval from others. Unfortunately, ignoring how others value you is very hard to do. Should there be a balance between how much you do for yourself versus how much you do because of what others will think of you?
DeleteEmily, I definitely agree with your thoughts on being confident in your morals while still staying grounded and confiding in others to get a fresh perspective. I feel that the main component of happiness is being satisfied with yourself, your stage in life, and your decisions, however, I understand, and see some truth in, the idea that outside influences from those whom you care about can be an important part of developing this aura of contentment. Especially in the adolescent years, in which we begin to truly seek who we are as people and what makes us happy, I think positive outside perspective can be helpful in finding the appropriate route to happiness. I do emphasize the notion of positive outside perspectives, for I feel that negative criticisms of an adolescent's life choices can hinder their confidence leading to a morphed and unrealistic view of what makes them happy; there is an extremely finite line between the two. What do you believes serves to be more important in developing a conscious sense of happiness, self-confidence in your actions and decisions or positive external feedback from others you care about?
DeleteMax Odell
ReplyDeleteI read John Betjeman's satirical poem "In Westminster Abbey" about an individual's reaction to the threat of death and violence. Personally, I would defend Betjeman's opinion that people react to violence by turning to God and praying for personal protection. In today's society, everyone is so scared of death. We fear death. Fear which paralyzes us from truly ever living. We've became so focused on living without dying, that we've begun to die without living. I would have no quarrel meeting my fate tomorrow, having lived the life I've had. Could anyone else say the same?
I do not know if I could say the same as I find myself slipping into fear more often than I expect. I do completely agree with what you wrote though. Fear is such a strong motivator that it can consume a person's entire life. I do think fear can be a good thing in rare situations. What would a society look like without fear?
DeleteThe Singer Solution to World Poverty - Peter Singer
ReplyDeleteIn this article, Singer attempts to play on the emotions of Americans to inform them that they have a moral responsibility to donate money to organizations that save the lives of children living in poverty. If this duty is imposed on every American, we are encouraging an unethical cycle in which more lives are put at stake by expanding poverty. If the average struggling individual develops the mindset that it is alright to be poor and not work because they will be taken care of using money that is donated, they are taking advantage of Americans the hard efforts and decency of Americans. Our fight against poverty will be meaningless and seemingly unconquerable. Americans should not have to give up the financial security that they have built up over a lifetime. However, in order to eradicate poverty, they should use the morality that would have otherwise propelled them to donate, to instead get out in poverty-stricken places and offer a hand. This fosters a supportive community that will motivate the youth to work harder.
I didn't read any of the texts because I didn't feel like it... I read both pieces, but the piece that I found most interesting was “ The Happy Life” by Bertrand Russell. Russell argued that the only way to achieve true happiness is for a person to free themselves from self-denial and move on from past deterrents. I’d have to agree with Russell because I know of personal experiences in which his viewpoint was accurate. His concepts are somewhat relevant to society today in that a certain level of confidence and simplicity is important in the progressing world. In the business world, it's essential that you carry yourself with some sense of confidence when promoting your product. Otherwise, you are unlikely to persuade the customer and will most likely lose the sale. We can apply this to the classroom as well. I know that i have asked questions regarding tests, and I receive the same answer, “Just don’t over think it”. As unhelpful as this often is, it supports the idea that over thinking is not always beneficial, and if you spend your life going crazy questioning everything, you are probably going to be miserable.
ReplyDeleteI read "The Happy Life" by Bertrand Russell. The purpose of this argument was to persuade the audience that it is more important to do things for yourself rather than do things because you are enforced to, in order to live a happier life. I agree with his claim because it is your life that you are living, so it's in your best interest to do things because you have a motivation to do so. People in society are so focused on what other people think of them, so they aren't the person they'd like to be. Teens especially tend to follow the crowd to fit in when they should just express themselves and embrace what makes them unique. They should help someone because they just want to or simply love someone to a selfish level because that's the way for someone to be truly happy.
ReplyDeleteI think that your perspective on the purpose for this passage is very true. Your analysis on the high school atmosphere and adolescents tendency to succumb to peer pressure directly correlates to the position of forced actions. Also I think that your observation about society in general rings true in many cases. Often people feel obliged to follow what their superiors say out of fear of not appearing to be a proper or maintaining a likeable personality. As a result, most of society is breed to think that perfection is an achievable goal and often results in over inflated expectations of what society expected people to be. Do you think that society has evolved to focus on what other people think about them or do you think that this has remained consistent over time?
DeleteI read “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer. Singer wrote this argument in order to push the members of society to leave their selfish consumerist ways and instead, spend their money in effort to help those who are poverty stricken. He wants us to realize that the lives of these less fortunate people are in our hands because we have the ability to donate our extra money to organizations. As a society, we should put the needs of others before ourselves because many of us have more than enough money to spend and this is how we will be progressive as a community. Today, there are many organizations around the world that are dedicated to raising money and providing essential needs for the less fortunate around the world. However, people are putting their desire for a luxurious life before saving another person’s life, and this is a moral dilemma that people should overcome.
ReplyDeleteI read The Happy Life by Bertrand Russell. This british philosopher reflects on the meaning of happiness. The author argues that in order to achieve happiness they must free themselves from self denial and become spontaneously active. Happiness requires spontaneous actions out of self interest without caring about what others think of you. Happiness needs to be achieved through self, it is not for the satisfaction for others. In todays society, people need to break from conformity in order to pursue their quest for happiness, people are so judgmental that it deprives others from happiness.
ReplyDeleteLay, I agree with your position on the matter. especially the last part when you talk about how people are judgmental. We rely on other’s opinions so much that often times it deprives us from being truly happy with ourselves. Why do you think it is that we depend on other people’s opinions so much, that we are willing to give up happiness for it? Is it just part of our human nature?
DeleteI read the Singer Solution to World Poverty by Peter Singer. The purpose of his argument was to address the issue of not many people donating to charity by comparing hypothetical situations with people who spend money instead of donating it. Donating all the money one can spare is not a good idea because there are practical expectations for spending in different societies, it encourages people to not work for their money since it will just be donated, and it gives people who are not as kind an unfair advantage. I think that it would be unfair for kinder people to donate all of their money while people who are not so kind do not donate, leading to them becoming the most powerful. If we made everybody donate, so that money was evenly spread out, besides the fact that that is impossible to achieve, it would be almost like having no form of currency whatsoever, since everybody has the same amount despite their jobs, inheritances, or gifts. Although it is a great goal to narrow the gap, having everybody donate everything they can would not be the right way to go about it.
ReplyDeleteNicole, I think that your realistic expectation of the inability to achieve absolute equal donating is very true; however, I think that your position on the unfairness of everyone donating and the lower value of currency as result does not necessarily ring true. I think that people have the choice to donate all their money out of kindness and as such they are able to feel more compassionate and thus do not equivocate themselves on the same level as those who chose not to help others. While having complete equality may diminish the national use of currency, the dollar would still be valuable in foreign countries. Though this international currency would not influence national consumerism hypothetically, this type of system would be highly unlikely. Do you think there should be a minimum charity donation and people can volunteer to donate more?
DeleteThe Happy Life by Bertrand Russell was a discussion over the meaning of happiness for an individual. The article described how an individual, in the eyes of a moralist, would only be happy surrounded by those they rely on rather than their own self success. The author mainly describes how an individual is only as happy as those who are able to unite and not pitted against the world, rather they find those who they can connect to and experience joy with. I also think that an individual is truly happy surrounded by those that they embrace due to the social interactions and similar personality connections that people are often able to establish. This argument reflects the common perception of a "successful and happy individual". Often society views a happy person as one who possesses great wealth and can publicize all of their material worth; however this article relates to the moral and simplistic version of humanity rather than capitalism, questioning the relativity of ethics in today's society.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Happy Life”, written by Bertrand Russell, Russell reflects on the meaning of happiness. Russell writes that if people act more spontaneously and naturally, we will be better, happier people. I agree with Russell in this statement. Russell used a really good example when he wrote about saving a drowning child. He wrote that if you are acting out of a natural urge to help, then you will be a better person after; however, if you are acting only after thinking of a reason to save the child, then you will be a worse person after. This example along with others shows how spontaneously acting in a natural way will help a person to be happier.
ReplyDelete