Today in class, we talked about the concept of effective altruism. In a simple sense, effective altruism calls for the public to realize that major problems such as poverty plague our world today, and we should take action to mitigate/resolve these problems. In his TED talk, world renowned effective altruist Peter Singer makes the claim that we should aim to reduce poverty in the world by donating money to charities he deems as legitimate. Having watched his TED talk, I was convinced that the effective altruism movement was plausible. However, I stumbled upon an interesting article published late last year in which the authors harshly criticize effective altruism and even go as far as to refer to it as “defective altruism.” In this article (link below), the authors point out that effective altruism is not at all effective at what it aims to do. That is, they claim that one should not be motivated to donate to a charity simply because one has been told to do so; rather, they should do so based on facts and should “be informed and see their donation as an investment.” In the authors’ words, “Being an informed donor means using facts to help make a giving decision, and looking beyond the slogans and the emotion triggered by appeals.” The authors believe that donating to a charity because of “emotions triggered by appeals” defeats the purpose of effective altruism, because such an action cannot be considered altruistic (since an altruistic act is one that is done out of selfless concern for others and independent of outside influence). Could they be right in their criticism?

Source: http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/the_elitist_philanthropy_of_so_called_effective_altruism

Wolf mentioned Aristotle’s theory of Eudaimonia which states that if a person does not want to find meaning in life, it just shows they were not well brought up and there is no point trying to educate them. I did some research and another definition of Eudaimonia is “a moral philosophy that defines right action as that which leads to the “well-being” of the individual”. Eudaimonia as the ultimate goal is objective, not subjective, because it characterizes the well-lived life irrespective of the emotional state of the person experiencing it. Plato refined the idea of Eudaimonia,  claiming that the rational part of the soul or mind must govern the spirited, emotional and appetitive parts in order to lead all desires and actions to eudaimonia, the principal constituent of which is virtue. Epicurus agreed with Aristotle that happiness, or eudaimonia, is the highest good, but he identified this with pleasure, on the grounds that pleasure is the only thing that people value for its own sake, and that its presence or absence is something which is immediately apparent to everyone. Eudaimonia can be associated with Egoism.

Imagine if the doctor told you that you had 24 hours left alive. What would you do?

Samuel Scheffler, in his paper “The Importance of the Afterlife, Seriously” argues that most people would do something meaningful for future generations. In their last moment, they would leave a mark on this world for everyone to remember them by.

What if everyone was going to die in 24 hours?

Rather than make the most out of their last day, Scheffler argues that everyone would be characterized by panic and the world would fall into disarray. Many people, however, would pray for salvation and to have a great afterlife.

But what is afterlife?

Scheffler argues why believe in heaven or hell, or any other after that we cannot ensure, when there is an afterlife: life after us. Our meaning lies in the fact that future generations created us, and that we have an impact on the generations after us. Essentially, the only afterlife we need is the children of the world, and we should strive to make the world better for those who will inhabit it after us.

A few days ago our class talked about the role of God when it came to defining what is right and wrong. Theists believe that God determines what is right and wrong and our laws should be based on that. There is a segment on PBS called “God In America” where they talk about the Founding Fathers and their different religions. They claimed that even though they had different religious beliefs, they all “professed a belief in God as the Creator of the Universe and believed that religion encouraged a moral citizenry”. I agree with this claim that our original laws were founded on christian beliefs. The website I have linked also talks about the different beliefs of the Founding Fathers. Go check it out!

http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/people/god-and-the-constitution.html

In class this past week, we discussed the meaning of life. In this post, I would like to discuss the meaning of life based on Hinduism. According to Hinduism, the meaning (purpose) of life is four-fold: to achieve Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. The first, dharma, means to act virtuously and righteously. That is, it means to act morally and ethically throughout one’s life. However, dharma also has a secondary aspect; since Hindus believe that they are born in debt to the Gods and other human beings, dharma calls for Hindus to repay this debt. The five different debts are as follows: debt to the Gods for their blessings, debt to parents and teachers, debt to guests, debt to other human beings, and debt to all other living beings. The second meaning of life according to Hinduism is Artha, which refers to the pursuit of wealth and prosperity in one’s life. Importantly, one must stay within the bounds of dharma while pursuing this wealth and prosperity (i.e. one must not step outside moral and ethical grounds in order to do so). The third purpose of a Hindu’s life is to seek Kama. In simple terms, Kama can be defined as obtaining enjoyment from life. The fourth and final meaning of life according to Hinduism is Moksha, enlightenment. By far the most difficult meaning of life to achieve, Moksha may take an individual just one lifetime to accomplish (rarely) or it may take several. However, it is considered the most important meaning of life and offers such rewards as liberation from reincarnation, self-realization, enlightenment, or unity with God.

Having described the meaning of life according to Hinduism, I now briefly offer my thoughts on this subject matter. I feel that religion provides its followers a set of goals to achieve in life, and in doing so, provides a meaning to each follower’s life. Without such guidance, one would likely conclude that life is ultimately meaningless. Therefore, for those individuals in the world who feel that there is no meaning to life, is belief in a religious faith is all that is needed to change their minds?

Source: http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/beliefs/purpose.htm#dharma

Or should we?

Our reading for our Philosophy class is the 10th chapter of Thomas Nagel’s What Does It All Mean? which was named “The Meaning of Life.” In this chapter, Nagel discussed many people’s meaning of life: how their actions fit into a larger scheme. Nagel, however, questions the validity of this proposition. How can we know that there is a larger picture, and why does it matter if there is a larger picture for our actions to fit into? Even with religion as an example and the goal of reaching heaven, why is that important? What makes that the meaning of life? If the meaning of life not to simply live? Without the bigger picture, some people will be more satisfied, and others will be depressed, as Nagel says. If we choose to focus on being good people for the sake of being good people and making the most out of our lives, no “bigger picture” should even cross our minds. We will surpass the larger picture by simply living in the world beneath it.

In our Philosophy class yesterday, we discussed the idea of Cultural Relativism: the notion that good and bad (right and wrong) is relative to culture. For example, in some cultures it is appropriate to commit sacrifice for a greater good, but in American cultures that would be considered immoral. Cultural relativism seems to explain a lot, such as the societal differences in law between cultures and how cultures came to adopt these values. Cultural relativism, however, creates many questions in the mind of the ‘humble’ American. What makes us special? In other words, what makes our progress important or relevant? Have we made any progress? And furthermore, why do we engage in fields such as philosophy? How can we dare explain the minds of others when their minds are so different from our own? The crisis created by cultural relativism is inevitable, and it forces one to wonder: is this explanation worth it? Essentially, yes. The human mind focuses on itself rather than others, so the provincial view provided by cultural relativism is not far from what has been practiced in the past. With the view of cultural relativism, we will finally stop interfering with the lives of others, as we have done so well in the past. (See: Imperialism)

In class today, we talked about corporal punishment and its prevalence in schools in Mississippi. In this post, I would like to discuss corporal punishment as I have witnessed it in my home country of India and offer a reason based on cultural relativism for why I think it exists even today despite being illegal.

Although there are many forms of corporal punishment, the one I have witnessed most commonly in Indian schools is the spanking of students by the teachers. What I found particularly surprising from my experience was that in one of the schools I attended, students from all grades were subject to this form of corporal punishment. This included children of all ages, from the youngest to the oldest. Supposedly, this instills in the children a sense of discipline, but does it really do so directly? I strongly feel it does not — instead, I believe it instills in students a sense of fear, which in turn “disciplines” them. That is, students are taught to behave properly out of fear of the consequences of misbehaving. This is especially powerful in extreme cases of corporal punishment, which in India can include forcing students to sit outside on their knees in blazing hot temperatures (often upwards of 100 degrees Fahrenheit) for hours on end.

Given this information, I ask a stupidly obvious question: is corporal punishment moral? Of course, I believe not. How then is there justification for its prevalence in India? From a cultural relativist standpoint, I believe that those who support corporal punishment in India fail to see that an objective moral truth regarding this practice exists (even though the Indian government has declared it illegal). That is, these individuals do not realize that corporal punishment is morally wrong and would likely argue that since society does not condemn the practice (i.e. it is prevalent despite having been declared illegal by the government), it is morally acceptable. However, I feel that the value behind corporal punishment is the same as that behind any other form of child disciplining: to teach children what is right and wrong. Why, then, do teachers in India exercise corporal punishment to teach students right and wrong when the same goal can be accomplished by more humane methods (i.e. timeouts)? Personally, I feel it is because throughout Indian history, disciplining children by corporal punishment has been the norm, so society has come to accept it as moral. That being said, when will all of Indian society realize it is immoral?

Early in the chapter, we read and discusses Antony’s work Good Minus God.  There was a point at the end of the work that really struck me with the idea of redemption.  Antony said, “You do not lose morality by giving up God; neither do you necessarily find it by finding Him … Most importantly, you lose the guarantee of redemption … You cannot have that if you are an atheist. In consequence, you must live your life, and make your choices with the knowledge that every choice you make contributes, in one way or another, to the only value your life can have”.  I find this idea to be very powerful.  Forgiveness is a common motif in faith, particularly in Christian faith.  On the belief that morality is centric to God, following the Christian values is important to maintaining a moral stance.  But, if you fall apart on these values, one can always count on God to forgive what choices you have made. Antony’s closing statement is,  “Some people think that if atheism were true, human choices would be insignificant. I think just the opposite — they would become surpassingly important”.  A person does have to live with the mistakes they make for the entirety, but with faith a person can see that they are forgiven.  Morality being a part of human nature is a great point through this work.  A person, though not religious, does have to live with their actions.  There will always be a sense of right and wrong even without the idea of eternal damnation for immoral choices.  Human nature knows what is wrong and what is right, and we can feel it when we are doing something immoral.

The “Golden Rule.”

This phrase is passed on from generation to generation as a means of providing morality. Since most of the recipients have a sense of empathy, the message is generally well received. Morality is our set of guidelines on how to live, and what is right and wrong. For the majority of my life, I have abided by this golden rule: treat others how you want to be treated. For example, don’t break into someone’s house and steal their possessions (unless you want someone to do that to you). There are many messages that can be drawn from this rule, but there are three main conclusions: don’t treat others badly unless you want to be treated badly, if you put nothing in, then you will get nothing out, and if you are kind and grateful, then others will be the same in return.

I’m choosing to start with the negative because to me, this argument is the most basic- even though it can have the largest consequences if not followed. It seems fairly simple, don’t steal, harm others, etc or bad things will come to you. Many people, however, believe that they are inherently special and that they can avoid the consequences of their bad actions. If you treat others badly, then you were either treated badly, or you will get what is coming to you, and others will treat you how you’ve treated others. This may seem like a fairly abstract concept, but the golden rule wouldn’t be the golden rule unless many people believed in it. Essentially, the most commonly drawn conclusion from the golden rule is don’t treat others badly unless you want the same to happen to you.

Another conclusion from the golden rule is what you put in is what you get out. Essentially, the more effort you put into a relationship, the more you get out of it. If you want to be truly cared about, then you have to care about others. This also ties into the third conclusion, which suggests that being kind brings kindness. I believe that herein lies the difference between a genuine desire to help others and helping others to help yourself: altruism vs egoism. I do not believe that people are pure altruists or egoists, simply because all people do things for themselves and for others. Rather than confining people in the binary of altruism or egoism, I believe there is more space in-between where all people lie. It is the degree of altruism and egoism that makes a difference. I do not mean to say that people can not commit altruistic acts, and the same for egoistic acts, but I do not believe that one action can define a person. Essentially, almost all people will prioritize themselves at some point and others at another points, but it is the degree to which they do so that makes a difference.  This is where the altruism vs. egoism debate ties back into the golden rule: if you truly care about others, then others will truly care about you. You may still care about yourself more than others, but as long as the degree to which you prioritize yourself over others is not too skewed, then who’s to say you’re not an altruist?