Time to move away from ranty posts, and get more self-analytical...
A friend recently posted this. We've heard it many times before. In other parts of the world, life sucks. We have all these resources, they don't. But most people, myself included, are quick to forget this message. Why?
I sat down and had a think about the logic behind it all. Basically, if I may over-simplify the argument: We have resources, much more than we need, and others could really do with resources. So if we give some of our resources, we may be a little less happy, but we make others far better off. Fair enough. In strict utilitarian terms, this is cut and dry situation; giving our money overseas is making more people happy. So, we ought to do this. But we don't.
The problem lies in the question of how much do we give. Lets say we're really conservative, and only give 1% of our resources to those who need it. That's doable right? But the problem is that after we give our 1%, the situation is basically the same. We still have much more resources than we need, and there are plenty of others who could really do with resources. So if we are being consistent, we really need to give 1% away again. But again, the situation is unchanged. The difference between the need and our resources is such that the situation will only change when we give away so much that we live in comparative poverty - and the situation is changed only in that we no longer have the resources, but the need will still be there.
People are going to realize this. They are going to realize that if they buy into the argument and give that 1%, it's going to legitimize the argument, which means legitimizing the idea of giving away more, and will make it difficult for them to say 'no' to further giving. Now, if people foresee this, and don't like the idea of living in comparative poverty, they are going to avoid giving the first 1%, because that's the best way to avoid conflict created by not giving more. It's simple cognitive dissonance.
So there you have it. An insight into why some people (or maybe just me?) are unwilling to buy into that argument. I'm not trying to excuse it, because it's not how it should be, instead I want to propose an alternative way to frame the appeal in order to make it easier to give.
You'll notice I referred to utilitarianism as an ethical framework that justified giving away your money. It claims that something is good in that it leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. And if you agree with that, then you'll agree with the formulation above. But there are other ethical frameworks that we can utilize. Ethical pluralism is the idea that there are a number of principles that need to be considered to determine if something is good. The six principles that we get taught in medical school are 'Justice, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Truthfulness, Dignity, Autonomy'. Now, in this case, the principles of Justice and Beneficence are applicable here, and should motivate us to give something, but unlike utilitarianism, they do not require us to give until we're living in poverty.
So, when we are appealing for people to do something about poverty, we should frame the question in terms of justice and beneficence, as opposed to utilitarianism. What does this mean? Emphasizing that addressing the problem doesn't have to mean giving away all your money. Instead, it involves acting in a way that is fair and just towards those in poverty, things like fair trade, where we spend our money in a way that is just. It involves policy change that enables people to build their own economies. Part of it will involve giving to development organizations, but eliminating any financial disparity is not required.
Well, those are my thoughts. Any comments? Any other reasons why people ignore poverty? Any other potential solutions to motivate people to pay attention to poverty?
Monday, May 3, 2010
Suppression of Dissent: What if it's what God wants?
This post concludes a series. You may find it helpful to read this Part I and Part II.
For the purposes of this post, I'm going to pretend you agree with me, that Christianity often involves the surrender of (a significant part of) adherent's rationality and self governance, and a commitment to agreeing with the dogma of the Christian religion. I'm going to answer one objection to this - if God orders us to submit to his religion, then shouldn't we submit to show our obedience?
Well, as I have partially addressed in the first post of the series, what is being asked here is not right, in fact, it's interfering with what is right. And if someone is asking us to submit to something that is wrong, it is our ethical duty to refrain from doing so, no matter who tells me otherwise, no matter what the consequences. So it is our ethical duty to not submit to the suppression of dissent.
But these are big words when we are talking about God, and not to be taken light heartedly, who wants to suffer for an eternity in hell because of an ethical ideal? Thankfully there is more to it, because as any Christian will tell you, God would never tell you to do something that is wrong. This is a useful philosophical argument (even though it doesn't always hold up in light of certain biblical passages), and so I argue that if God is good (and omnipotent), he would not require such a thing of us.
Suppression of Dissent just isn't something an all-powerful all-loving God would do. If he (or she) is as amazing as Christianity claims about him, the great creator of the universe, and alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, solitary in all his glory etc, etc..., then why does he care that humans are slightly misguided? why does he need people to follow this code, to the letter, to worship him and adore him?
Lets look at it the other way round. Think of a dictator, any dictator, suppressing dissent, enforcing their will on their people, taking away their freedoms, etc. Why do they do this? It's because they need to control the people, it's because they are aware of the limits of their power, and so need to ensure people won't rebel. But God? who can rebel against him? he's omnipotent right? and he has no need to control people, because there is no limit to his power!
This leaves one further question; is Christianity really about controlling people? How did it end up that way? To this I would respond that Christianity is not primarily about controlling people, that it wasn't part of the initial plan, so to speak, but that its controlling nature developed. Now I don't think its controlling nature developed when a bunch of people sat round a table and decided they needed to control people. I've a feeling it was more subtle than that - over time, various subgroups within a religion are going to drift between various ideas, and the ideas of the subgroup will influence how successful that subgroup is. Ideas that are successful at making new members, and keeping old members will make the group more successful, and so these ideas will become more common. And controlling ideas are going to made subgroups very successful. Hence it's entirely plausible that with time (and with variation and selection) a religion will develop controlling tendencies.
So, the Suppression of Dissent is likely to be the product of the natural development of ideas, and not the product of an omnipotent, beneficent God. At the same time, it is not good, does not produce good, and so it is my belief that it is my ethical duty to take a stand against it.
This concludes the series, thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts, I hope I haven't offended anyone in my discussions, hopefully you can appreciate where I'm coming from, and can recognize when I got a bit 'ranty'. I welcome any thoughts below.
For the purposes of this post, I'm going to pretend you agree with me, that Christianity often involves the surrender of (a significant part of) adherent's rationality and self governance, and a commitment to agreeing with the dogma of the Christian religion. I'm going to answer one objection to this - if God orders us to submit to his religion, then shouldn't we submit to show our obedience?
Well, as I have partially addressed in the first post of the series, what is being asked here is not right, in fact, it's interfering with what is right. And if someone is asking us to submit to something that is wrong, it is our ethical duty to refrain from doing so, no matter who tells me otherwise, no matter what the consequences. So it is our ethical duty to not submit to the suppression of dissent.
But these are big words when we are talking about God, and not to be taken light heartedly, who wants to suffer for an eternity in hell because of an ethical ideal? Thankfully there is more to it, because as any Christian will tell you, God would never tell you to do something that is wrong. This is a useful philosophical argument (even though it doesn't always hold up in light of certain biblical passages), and so I argue that if God is good (and omnipotent), he would not require such a thing of us.
Suppression of Dissent just isn't something an all-powerful all-loving God would do. If he (or she) is as amazing as Christianity claims about him, the great creator of the universe, and alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, solitary in all his glory etc, etc..., then why does he care that humans are slightly misguided? why does he need people to follow this code, to the letter, to worship him and adore him?
Lets look at it the other way round. Think of a dictator, any dictator, suppressing dissent, enforcing their will on their people, taking away their freedoms, etc. Why do they do this? It's because they need to control the people, it's because they are aware of the limits of their power, and so need to ensure people won't rebel. But God? who can rebel against him? he's omnipotent right? and he has no need to control people, because there is no limit to his power!
This leaves one further question; is Christianity really about controlling people? How did it end up that way? To this I would respond that Christianity is not primarily about controlling people, that it wasn't part of the initial plan, so to speak, but that its controlling nature developed. Now I don't think its controlling nature developed when a bunch of people sat round a table and decided they needed to control people. I've a feeling it was more subtle than that - over time, various subgroups within a religion are going to drift between various ideas, and the ideas of the subgroup will influence how successful that subgroup is. Ideas that are successful at making new members, and keeping old members will make the group more successful, and so these ideas will become more common. And controlling ideas are going to made subgroups very successful. Hence it's entirely plausible that with time (and with variation and selection) a religion will develop controlling tendencies.
So, the Suppression of Dissent is likely to be the product of the natural development of ideas, and not the product of an omnipotent, beneficent God. At the same time, it is not good, does not produce good, and so it is my belief that it is my ethical duty to take a stand against it.
This concludes the series, thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts, I hope I haven't offended anyone in my discussions, hopefully you can appreciate where I'm coming from, and can recognize when I got a bit 'ranty'. I welcome any thoughts below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
