Of course, one can look around and worry about mankind only if one is lucky enough to have secured his or her own personal well-being, and that of his or her relatives; one must be wealthy enough to not have to struggle with one's scarcity of means; healthy enough to not being hampered by pain or sickness; and happy enough to be able to distract one's mind from day-to-day problems. If you are in such a favourable situation, however, you may still be more concerned with yourself than with the rest of the world and its inhabitants, or with the progress of mankind as a whole.
A few signs that such is the case (and I am sure to upset quite a few of you now -but it is not done on purpose!): being religious; thinking that you are okay because you donate money to charities, and caring for tax cuts more than you care for social security; approving pre-emptive wars; avoiding the active search of and exposition to information about the condition of third-world countries, with the excuse that you cannot stand seeing the suffering of people and children there. I try to justify this list below.
1) Your being religious betrays your anxiety about your mortality. We all hate the thought, but you find it intolerable, and seek refuge in the belief that you, as a believer, will be resurrected after your death, to enjoy the light of your creator and be reunited with your beloved ones, or to lay with seventy-two virgins (on this one count, I believe I would rather be a muslim if I ever had to choose).
Now, the above by itself is a pretty egotistic choice, but it is compounded by the fact that the religion you believe in then brings you to lose concern on the suffering of human beings, whom you are brought to liken to Jesus Christ, and who will one day find salvation anyway; when not specifically not giving a damn about those who are not members of your own sept (specific of Islamism on this one count). One example ? The Pope's fret on the use of condoms, when it is well-known that it saves lives. If this were coming from a unrepresentative, deranged individual we might even forgive him, but being the head of an organization with over one billion adepts, who eagerly listen to every word he utters, the Pope's active opposition to condoms equates to murder.
Ratzinger, along with his predecessors, is responsible for tens of thousands deaths by AIDS in Africa every year. Was Saddam Hussein a mass murderer ? Yes, despite he probably never killed anybody directly. Is the Pope one ? Of course he is: where is the difference? More to the point, if you are a catholic, you have better think of what you are supporting. If you care for the well-being and progress of mankind as a whole, and not just for what your neighbors think about you, you should consider this very carefully.
2) Many of us do appear to care about third-world countries and the living conditions there, and they devote considerable amounts of money to charities. A commendable act, but not one that should be done with the main purpose of feeling better about oneself. In particular, I find it suspicious that the same individuals who donate money are oftentimes those who advocate a "light government" and support tax cuts, when they all too well know that those moneys are made unavailable to improvements of the quality of public schools, health organizations, and other social causes. One prime example: Bill Gates. His charity organization is Wonderful, with a capital W. But he is deducting the money from his taxes... I have no interest in computing whether he is better off in the end or not, but you get the point.
3) If you live in the western world, you are most likely concerned with the insurgency of islamic fundamentalism and the consequent threats of terrorist acts in your neighborhood. That by itself is not a sign that you care most about your own well-being and very little about mankind as a whole; but it becomes one when you justify "pre-emptive wars" and approve the attempts to eradicate with the force of weapons the threat you feel. Because what really moves you is not the belief that those bombs you sign off will create a better world for everybody -which would be very tough to prove- but the thought that they will make the world temporarily more secure for you.
4) The final sign I mentioned above suggesting that, in my opinion, you might not be really caring as much for the human race as you trick yourself into believing, is your screening yourself from direct exposure to news and stories about the life conditions in third-world countries, or in places plagued by never-ending wars, such as Palestine, a few African countries, Afghanistan. Maybe we set the bar too low for defining what a war crime is, because I can see no war in modern times which was not riddled with war criminals. And if we lose concern with present-day wars and the crimes that are daily committed behind the benign term "military operations", we are basically giving our moral placet to them, and a wild card to the perpetrators of those crimes.
So, since I more or less pass the test above, not belonging to any of the above four classes, I have the right of believing I care more about mankind than most of you do. My main concern is that we face extremely tough challenges in the XXIst century: climate change, overpopulation, famine, viruses, wars and guerrilla (which I equate to terrorism), energy resources, economical stability, a sustainable development. All these challenges demand a coherent action, which is much harder to put together than one would think, given the large concentration of power in the hands of few world leaders. But before we try to put together such a coherent action, I believe we first of all need to put together, as individuals, the willpower to act for the benefit of humanity as a whole. I think this is a real challenge for each of us.
Comments
There is the saying WWJD what would Jesus do, and that is what it truly means to be a follower of Christ. Christ was a man who emulated what it meant to put others before himself, not just as he died on the cross, but as he lived. Jesus was a man who lived simply and tried to meet others needs before himself. Jesus gave the command love your neighbors as yourself, and that is to be followed, but what is wanted and implied is that you shouldn't just love your neighbors as yourself but put them before yourself, and their needs before your own needs.
If Jesus was a man today he would not be spending his time in rural areas preaching to the people who worship him and are often what you have said in this article but he would be spending his time in the Ghettos of the world, trying to lift people up and bring them to a better place. It makes me sad to read what you say and see the cold hard truth in the words, my "brothers" and "sisters" in Christ often forget to emulate that most important part of his life and instead just are blind to everything but their own desire to as you said make the world a better place for themselves.
All in all I just wanted to let people know that there are a few of us Christians (that I know of, and hopefully many others) who are not so religious as we are trying to follow Christ and care deeply about the world as he did. I of course am not even close to what Christ was, and I may not be as close to caring as you are, I don't know, but somebody has to represent for all the followers of Christ out their who care not just for the eternal lives of others but for the mortal lives too.
@Ethan Ray: imho nice people would still be nice without religion, but I don't think religion ever managed to turn bad (whatever this means) people into nice ones. It's funny how religious people eye atheists as immoral, at the same time not realising that doing good deeds out of fear IS NOT exactly moral.
As about the 4th point I use to illustrate it by a phrase I heard once. "(Re Africa famine constantly on the news) as if it's one of Greece's main problems!" (the country isn't essential in this case, I guess there are variations everywhere) I was about to reply by "So are you greek in the first place, and then human?"
I'm not a Catholic myself - I was brought up as an Ulster Protestant, with the zeroth commandment "Thou shalt not ... as the Catholics".
The Roman Catholic Church is, it seems, hooked by Aristotle. If they could decouple from him (as Luther did theologically and Galileo did for science) they might be able to rethink what is the meaning of "natural", and this contraception business might this be resolved. Nevertheless, I would put in a word here for "Old Redsocks" (as Ian Paisley once called him.)
Once cannot expect a reasoned debate on this subject, since the opposition is so strident, being dominated by atheists who think that (subject to other moral considerations) they have a God-given right to sexe sans frontières. As a certain famous Chinese philosopher did not say:
"Male atheists are an impossibility. Every man believes he is God's gift to women."
(1) People should form monogamous relationships and abstain from love-making until marriage.
(2) The spread of terrible infectious diseases by free-love is not new and condoms are not 100% effective and may not always be handy, but the spread of morality is 100% effective (abstaining until marriage and then then keeping to a monogamous relationship). The people who are the murderers are those who promote less than 100% effective alternatives to morality.
You can reply that the Pope's solution is itself less than 100% ineffective because some people are immoral brats. Consider the choice. Either you give some immoral brats some lessons about morality, or you give them a packet condoms. Which choice is going to be the most caring and lest selfish? Which is the longer-term solution?
Also, I think that pre-emptive war against Hitler circa 1935 when he illegally re-militarized the Rhineland would have been less costly in human lives than WWII. The modern terrorist states and groups that organize attacks on peaceful countries may need to be dealt with using a pre-emptive war.
What's the great bonus of waiting until after you have been attacked by terrorists, before confronting them? Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted is useless. Sometimes, you simply have to try to prevent problems before them arise, instead of waiting until it is too late.
Sometimes, you simply have to try to prevent problems before them arise, instead of waiting until it is too late.
So by that logic, it would be OK to jail people in anticipation of them committing a crime? After all, if a country is perceived as a threat and it's good to preemptively attack them, then it should also be correct to do the same to individuals that are threatening. Since we aren't dealing with committed acts, then it would be sufficient for me to fear someone to justify killing them?
like always, there is a very fine line to draw here that will change with every new situation. giving a scripture to be followed 100% is no solution. or at least not a good one.
In his apocalyptic novel The Camp of the Saints, written in 1973, the French writer Jean Raspail contemplates the dilemma facing Western nations as a mass of starving boat people from the Third World arrive on the shores of southern Europe.
"They were a million poor wretches, overwhelmed with misery, ready to disembark on our shores," he wrote. "To let them in would destroy us; to reject them would destroy them." It is a dilemma with which Europe will have to grapple for a long time to come.
What then?
Cheers,
T.
and we have overpopulation, relative to resources, because of medicine.
But we are all doomed anyway. If we are to believe crazy stuff, we might as
well believe crazy stuff that works - and don't expect it to make sense. But
you could have Pope Lenin, Pope Trotsky and Pope Stalin, and Pope Mao
who dealt with overpopulation by getting rid of over 100,000,000 humans.
Cheers,
T.
I used to worry about this stuff but discovered that things often
do not work out as people expect, and there is a lot of social
inertia. One wag said that we will run out of oil and civilization
will collapse. That will take care of the carbon problem.
1814 JANE AUSTEN Mansfield Park chapter 3:
Her* cousins, seeing her with red eyes, set her down as a hypocrite.
It is all too easy to judge others, especially public figures, as hypocrites. Would I have done any better in their place?
*referring to Fanny, of course.
Robert, it is of course true that claiming to be better than Bill Gates because we, in his pants, would have donated X times as much and not deducted it from the taxes, is liable to be labeled as hypocrite. As Groucho used to say, "I am opposed to Millionaires, but it would be dangerous to offer me the position". But the judgement still stands, and I think it is correct.
Cheers,
T.
being too sure about ones own solution of the world problems is a sure way into totalitarism. i don't want to argue any specific point you raised. just remember, that a very good example of someone who meets all your philantropic criteria was Karl Marx - and just look what his ideas begot.
if the pope's moral policy, the preemptive wars or the often failed 'development aids' to the post-collonial world have told me anything, it is this: mind your own business and let others mind theirs. it's probably better that way.
...that a very good example of someone who meets all your philantropic criteria was Karl Marx - and just look what his ideas begot.
That's really unfair to blame Marx. How do you think capitalism would've fared under Stalin? Let's put blame where blame belongs.
...it is this: mind your own business and let others mind theirs. it's probably better that way.
The problem with that perspective is that invariably someone else's business becomes yours anyway and usually at a least advantageous time. Consider that this is precisely what happened with the rise of Nazi Germany and suddenly it was everyone's business.
This doesn't mean we should be careless or perpetually interfere, but it does mean that despite the messiness of the situation, one must always evaluate the degree and depth of involvement and it simply isn't possible to let everything work itself out.
Cheers,
T.
It sorta depends on what you mean by 'helping'. Then there was the book 'whats the matter with Kansas'
where evidently people do not know what is in their own economic interest. Really ! According to who ?
Kinda depends on what your priorities are. The Left always looks at it economically, but often people
vehemently disagree, so the Left concludes that they are stupid. And then there is always - what would
you do about people who think nothing of living 20 feet under sea level, or actually like living on the
San Andreas Fault, or next to Mt Aetna.
Then there was the book 'whats the matter with Kansas'
where evidently people do not know what is in their own economic interest. Really ! According to who ?
Kinda depends on what your priorities are. The Left always looks at it economically, but often people
vehemently disagree, so the Left concludes that they are stupid.
It is stupid when people sacrifice their own economic well-being and then expect assistance. If they have other priorities then let them live with those priorities, but it always involves having to provide economic assistance then anyway.
This is the same thing that happened to corporations. Everyone's big on the "free market" until they actually have to face their own demise. Suddenly socialized bail-outs are pretty attractive.
While I can certainly understand the self-serving nature of these attitudes, I also can't call them anything except stupid.
Readers of Dickens will recall the figure of Mrs. Jellyby in "Bleak House," a lady who was full of good intentions and advice about the welfare and standards of distant peoples in Africa and elsewhere, but unfortunately overlooked and neglected the conditions in her own family and her own home. Dickens depicts her as a "telescopic philanthropist," fixated on distant causes at the expense of her own family and home values.
I was looking for material on Jellyby-ism (very relevant to the current topic) but I also found this:
The Secret History of the Dismal Science. Part II. Brotherhood, Trade, and the Negro Question from which it appears that Dickens had an agenda also. And it also makes Carlyle sink much further in my opinion (he is responsible for the horrible mis-definition of a straight line as "the shortest distance between two points", through a mis-translation of Lagrange).









It is highly unlikely that there will ever be a utopian existence, so there will be some that suffer, while others live luxuriously. Some will die unnecessarily and some will live unnecessarily.
In short, when one "cares" about the human race, are they not also advancing a vision of the direction they would like to see it go? As I mentioned already, other than extinction, what is there to "care" about?