event horizon

my problems pale in comparison to the worries of others.

tell me something good.

global justice via seperation of spheres

The ethics of global justice has at its core the themes of fairness, equality and obligation or duty to others. Philosophers have presented several different proposals regarding the lens through which we should view and approach the issue; however thus far there has been no consensus on a particular viewpoint. Envisioning a truly just society becomes problematic due to unclear moral obligations to others with whom we may or may not have clear relationships, an individual’s level of responsibility to help others given the amount and degree of suffering in the world, and the potential for society to adjust in order to allow equal access to opportunities and resources among everyone. The contemporary issue of global justice is framed by these questions, and though ethicists and philosophers have approached it from many unique angles, a practical solution thus far has not been derived, let alone agreed upon.
In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Singer outlines his perspective regarding the distribution of resources as well as the moral duty one has to assist others. Singer presents a case pointing to wealthy countries that have the ability and capacity to assist poorer countries and their failure to do so sufficiently. His argument begins by defining the suffering caused by lack of food, shelter, and medicine as fundamentally bad. The second premise he makes, that “If it is in our power to prevent something bad without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought morally to do it,” invokes Kant’s first formulation of the Categorical Imperative, a moral principle by which one should judge one’s maxims prior to acting. Singer concludes his argument with a criticism of affluent nations and the way in which their citizens react to the suffering of others in poorer countries as being unjustifiable and morally wrong (Singer 790). Advocating that pleasure and happiness should be maximized and in turn, pain should be minimized in a just society, Singer’s position is similar to that of Mill.
In his “Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral World,” Arthur questions Singer’s idea that the concept of equality encompasses equal distribution of resources, but instead promotes a position of non-interference. This position of non-interference is problematic because it infers a false state of isolation when in reality, all interaction between nations and persons results in some degree of positive or negative interference.
Singer clarifies his position by outlining specific criteria, which define our position of moral responsibility to others. According to Singer in his moderate version of this theory, we are required to prevent the bad, but only if we are not forced to sacrifice something of equal moral importance, such as our lives or health. Interestingly, we are not required to promote the good. The obligation is not influenced by the distance between those in need and those capable of assisting them, and one’s duty to give does not decrease but increases in light of the lack of giving among those who could as both are used to defend non action (Singer 791).
An example of Singer’s position involves the purchase of new clothing for aesthetic reasons, emphasizing the point that the money spent on that new clothing could have been spent helping those in need. Singer points out that the moral significance of the food to a person who was starving would far outweigh the merely aesthetic significance to the shopper who chooses not to buy the new clothing. In contrast, Singer’s strong version of his theory is that one ought to give to the point of marginal utility, meaning the point at which one would give until they reached a point just higher than the position of those in need, but it is economically unfeasible for nations to operate in such a way without impoverishing themselves inadvertently through the collapse of the commercial marketplace.
Arthur again critiques Singer’s position by negatively restating Singer’s position as, “In other words, people are entitled to keep their earnings only if there is no way for them to prevent a greater evil by giving them away” (Arthur 789). In today’s world, which frames all of our lives and influences all of us, it is difficult if not impossible to conceive of a situation in which giving would be unnecessary, such as an end to starvation in the world. It seems as though Arthur’s restatement of Singer’s position, through its use of words like entitlement, and evil (where Singer referred to the bad), moves more to incite a response of negativity and fear in readers toward Singer’s position than to offer an alternative.
Arthur offers the theory that all pain and suffering is equal in importance, and that, by that standard, no person’s pain or suffering is more important than another. However, there are clearly different types and degrees of pain and suffering that one can subjectively experience. While it is impossible for one to articulate to another the specific experience of one’s type and degree of pain, some pain caries a deeper moral responsibility than others. While it is true that starvation is equally painful, whether a person is suffering in the US or thousands of miles away in Africa, it is not necessarily morally equal. For example, in the US, there are institutions, which consistently work to alleviate starvation, such as the government through welfare, and society through homeless shelters, food pantries, and so forth. However, in Africa there is no consistent source or opportunity of relief, thus the suffering from starvation becomes a more important issue due to the degree of and lack of effort to decrease that pain and suffering. While the system in place to address the problem of starvation in the US is by no means perfect, the key difference lies in the opportunities available to the poor in contrast to the lack of opportunities to starving communities in Africa. Furthermore, the ineffable nature of the experience of pain and suffering itself makes it impossible to state that the experience of the same category of suffering and pain is of the same degree, as we have no ability to quantify the experiences. Thus the natural position would be not to apply a false label of equal importance but to view each as a different instance of pain and focus more on the cause and effect relationship of variables contributing to and resulting from each particular instance in gauging importance if the distinction is necessary to one’s argument.
Arthur appears to take an imaginary position of objectivity, which makes his position concerning just desserts ineffective. Just as it is impossible to objectively declare as equal two separate instances of subjective pain, it is also clearly impossible to determine objectively what one does or does not deserve, given not only that the experience of life is a subjective experience, but that the position needed to objectively judge that which one justly deserves is impossible due to the inevitable subjectivity of all experience.
Singer promotes both relief aid and population control mechanisms as a possible solution to global poverty. While Singer’s position initially faults wealthy nations for not offering significant support to their poorer counterparts, his theory does not seem to look at the problem of global poverty through the lens of nationalism, but states, “the moral point of view requires us to look beyond the interests of our own society” (793). The theory becomes problematic when considering its practicality due to the drastic change in personal behavior and ideals regarding work and earnings among people living today as well as the potential for widespread economic depression in the consumer marketplace, especially under the strong version of Singer’s proposal, due to the lack of spending on non essential items that would be a consequence. However, being a Kantian proposal, it seems as though Singer while probably aware of the potential consequences of his ideas, in his utilitarian argument, the consequences are what matter most of all and should be addressed more directly.
The argument that Singer presents fails to address the most important aspect of the issue, which is practical implementation. The overall state of affairs in global economics and social hierarchies can be traced back through history as a series of multiple intertwined series of cause and effect. As such, any practically applicable system of promoting a more just economic and/or social reform must logically take into consideration not only the intention of the action taken but also the complexity of the consequences that result, both positive and negative.
In order to effectively address the problem of global poverty and inequality, a separation must be made between the social (human level), political, and religious spheres of thinking and interaction in the world. Change must be allowed to occur within the social sphere, independent of political or religious connotations and obligations. We must separate humanitarian and political efforts, and endow ourselves with a duality of thought regarding separate political duties/religious duties, and humanitarian responsibilities thus alleviating the potential contradictions that can arise in contemplating all on the same plane. For example, HIV is a widespread epidemic and overpopulation is an issue on the African continent. Through scientific research, we know that condom use not only drastically reduces the transmission of HIV from an infected person to an uninfected partner, but also reduces the likelihood of pregnancy. Thus, the distribution of condoms to the people of Africa is a practical way to approach two very serious problems. The controversy arises from the interference of the religious sphere, which opposes the distribution of condoms from a theologically based moral perspective. In order to assist other human beings in need, we must do so on the social (human being) level, and not let those actions which would do the most good be discouraged and restricted based on the ideological influences of either the religious or political spheres.
I propose a structure of societal interaction in which the sphere of human-to-human interaction is at the bottom, the political sphere is above, and the religious sphere hovers on the sidelines. In this arrangement, the humanitarian actions are at the base level and can act independently of politics and religion. Since the category of religion is very ambiguous due to the variety of religious belief and thought in the world, the religious sphere must exist separate to the spheres of both human-to-human interaction and politics. Since the political sphere is situated above human-to-human interaction, human interaction has the power to influence politics through a bottom-up modality. However, the influential action goes only one way; the political sphere does not influence the sphere of human interaction. For example, a humanitarian effort to help the people of Iraq, who have suffered trauma and been impoverished due to the military efforts of the US Army, has the potential to change and educate political views toward the situation in Iraq, the political beliefs and objectives of the military effort should not have the power to discourage or limit human-to-human interaction among the civilian populations.
According to Hume, social virtues and value come from a natural instinct combined with education. In turn, the social virtues benefit both the society as a whole as well as the individuals, who feel things concerning the affairs of others. Effective change, therefore, comes in the format of social norms. Positions, such as the concept of the “veil of ignorance” promoted by Rawls, are seductive in the sense that they invite us to consider how to better set up a just society, but Rawls argument is flawed in that there is no possibility of attaining complete objectivity from a position within the system, and more practically, there is no reset button to press in order to achieve a “do-over.” Change in the system must be initiated from the base human level and must always be aware of the ultimate subjectivity of every aspect of the issue. It is through this method that the problem of global poverty and inequality can best be addressed, as opposed to a top-down attempt to restructure society or by focusing solely on motive and ignoring the historical and contemporary consequential relationship of past and present actions on a complex and interconnected social and economic global society.
In terms of assessing our individual degree of responsibility, or duty, to assist others in need, individually and subjectively we must accept our feelings and natural inclination to action when we witness (by our own experience or through the various forms of media available to us) suffering among others. One must allow oneself to experience this reaction through a humanitarian lens, free of political or religious bias as a result of the duality of thought concept previously mentioned. Through institutions and education, a positive correlation between happiness and helping others results in a state where there is no reduction in overall happiness as a result of giving. Isolationism and Nationalism are irrelevant to this humanitarian effort, as they exist independently on the political plane. Participation is thus encouraged and non contradictable with the separate political ideas of Nationalism and isolationism.
It is through a social movement such as this and a rethinking of the boundaries of politics and humanitarian efforts that any sweeping change could occur. The relationship of cause and effect must be recognized, both historically and in contemporary society. While there is no well-developed and currently implemental plan available to realistically solve the problem of global poverty and inequality, philosophers are focusing in on the important issue of deriving the correct lens through which to view and approach this complex and fluid issue, which is a necessary first step.

i should have deleted my myspace a long time ago

too much time wasted reading other people’s crap. not enough time (or anonymity) to really do much with my own crap. while i suppose no one is totally anonymous online, oh what the hell; this is good enough for me.

I am sitting here, having just driven home after watching a psychologically scary movie, and then right as I got near my drive, a dog jumped out in front of me out of no where. NERVES!! Also, it is very still outside, literally the calm before the storm, as storms are apparently on the way tonight. boy do i feel safe! nothing like being by yourself, out in the middle of no where, after just having watched a scary movie, and knowing that a storm could came while i am sleeping.

I have to give a presentation tomorrow morning about the ethics and ignorance surrounding stem cell research, specifically Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. I am not going to explain that any further here.

My theory of the day, well actually one of them, the first, is as follows:

I don’t believe that there is any conceivable way that human beings at this point or maybe any point can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is 1. no meaning to all of this because brain death=death of the mind or 2. there is no creative force in the universe because it’s so much simpler to imagine several atoms of pristine hydrogen popping into existence into nothing from nothing and not only that- but eventually, through complete chaos result in me sitting here on the knife’s edge of space/time being conscious and typing this nonsense out to share it with other likewise complete flukes of existence. could go on and on but won’t.

and secondly:

nothing is a priori, no matter what anyone thinks. one can not take an objective position outside of life from within life, even imagining that such a position exists is absurd. so, there are no ‘true’ facts because everything from the most basic to the most complex is tempered by the human senses and interpretation thereof. Every great discovery is either based on a pattern that someone expects to see, or on a supposed freak occurrence. for that reason i don’t think that 100% trust should be placed in the scientific method, or philosophy et all. I walk in my house every day and the dogs bark. I know and expect that to take place. As a human being, my mind naturally records patterns and in a part my well being depends on them. If nothing were predictable, its possible that I might not believe that I even exist etc, but sometimes that just happens on its own. Back to my point, I expect the pattern, thus unless something really obviously is out of place when I come home, I open the door and hear the dogs barking. end of story. or is it? Am I putting too much emphasis on the pattern that I hold what I expect to have happen above everything else happening at the same time? Do I notice the book on the floor, or other minute detail? anyway, take that as you will, it is far from developed.

and if a deaf person would never realize they were deaf until they encountered a hearing person, and a blind person would never realize they were blind until encountering a seeing person, who is to say that we come equipped with every sensory input that exists? Sure its a little tough to imagine up an entirely new sense, not counting the cliche’d psychic powers etc, but an entirely new input completely unrelated to anything else we have ever experienced? Could we even conceive of one? Can you define hearing to the deaf in any way that they would be able to imagine hearing? Can you ever define sight to a blind person in any way that they would be able to imagine seeing? Probably not. But they didn’t know they were deaf and blind until they were introduced to someone who was not.

I call this the background track. I feel sorry/envy for people who can live in the moment, thinking of the moment, and experiencing the moment unadulterated by constant questioning and analysis. Having the background track just means nothing is ever satisfying, nothing is ever fully engaging, not even pain, not even pleasure, for no matter what is going on on the outside, this is whats going on on the inside. Do you have a background track?

Small and Mighty

Karma and Maya are insane.