The misery of the world.
Intuitively we know that the proper response to the misery of the world is to become compassionate, emphatic, and caring for the welfare of others.
Now, back to reality, we often build a fortress or inner citadel, motived by the pain of actually caring about others rather than do something about the misery of the world. Many people become thick-skinned, ignorant, and uncaring shits about the problems of the world. But, this isn't entirely true. America stands as perhaps the only nation that devotes astronomical sums of money to charity and foreign affairs? Yet, we are ruled by people who are uncaring, narcissistic and motivated by self-interest. Why the contradiction? What's going on here? Why is darkness winning the war on perpetuating the misery of the world? We've had Jesus, Buddha, Martin Luther King, and countless others tell us that we need to be cognizant about the welfare for others. Yet, little has changed. We still meddle with other nations welfare, which leads to such humanitarian crisis' like Syria, Afghanistan, or Iraq.
People (myself included), often become depressed when confronted with the misery of the world. Their powerlessness becomes a source of supreme frustration. The caring aspect of oneself turns on itself due to internalizing these issues and one becomes stuck in their own poop. Therefore what's the solution? To start caring even more? How?
This is where the value of philosophy, according to Bertrand Russell can be found.
Here's the quote I have in mind, which introduced me to appreciate the value of philosophy:
Quoting Bertrand Russell
Thoughts?
Now, back to reality, we often build a fortress or inner citadel, motived by the pain of actually caring about others rather than do something about the misery of the world. Many people become thick-skinned, ignorant, and uncaring shits about the problems of the world. But, this isn't entirely true. America stands as perhaps the only nation that devotes astronomical sums of money to charity and foreign affairs? Yet, we are ruled by people who are uncaring, narcissistic and motivated by self-interest. Why the contradiction? What's going on here? Why is darkness winning the war on perpetuating the misery of the world? We've had Jesus, Buddha, Martin Luther King, and countless others tell us that we need to be cognizant about the welfare for others. Yet, little has changed. We still meddle with other nations welfare, which leads to such humanitarian crisis' like Syria, Afghanistan, or Iraq.
People (myself included), often become depressed when confronted with the misery of the world. Their powerlessness becomes a source of supreme frustration. The caring aspect of oneself turns on itself due to internalizing these issues and one becomes stuck in their own poop. Therefore what's the solution? To start caring even more? How?
This is where the value of philosophy, according to Bertrand Russell can be found.
Here's the quote I have in mind, which introduced me to appreciate the value of philosophy:
Quoting Bertrand Russell
Apart from its utility in showing unsuspected possibilities, philosophy has a value—perhaps its chief value—through the greatness of the objects which it contemplates, and the freedom from narrow and personal aims resulting from this contemplation. The life of the instinctive man is shut up within the circle of his private interests: family and friends may be included, but the outer world is not regarded except as it may help or hinder what comes within the circle of instinctive wishes. In such a life there is something feverish and confined, in comparison with which the philosophic life is calm and free. The private world of instinctive interests is a small one, set in the midst of a great and powerful world which must, sooner or later, lay our private world in ruins. Unless we can so enlarge our interests as to include the whole outer world, we remain like a garrison in a beleagured fortress, knowing that the enemy prevents escape and that ultimate surrender is inevitable. In such a life there is no peace, but a constant strife between the insistence of desire and the powerlessness of will. In one way or another, if our life is to be great and free, we must escape this prison and this strife.
One way of escape is by philosophic contemplation. Philosophic contemplation does not, in its widest survey, divide the universe into two hostile camps—friends and foes, helpful and hostile, good and bad—it views the whole impartially. Philosophic contemplation, when it is unalloyed, does not aim at proving that the rest of the universe is akin to man. All acquisition of knowledge is an enlargement of the Self, but this enlargement is best attained when it is not directly sought. It is obtained when the desire for knowledge is alone operative, by a study which does not wish in advance that its objects should have this or that character, but adapts the Self to the characters which it finds in its objects. This enlargement of Self is not obtained when, taking the Self as it is, we try to show that the world is so similar to this Self that knowledge of it is possible without any admission of what seems alien. The desire to prove this is a form of self-assertion and, like all self-assertion, it is an obstacle to the growth of Self which it desires, and of which the Self knows that it is capable. Self-assertion, in philosophic speculation as elsewhere, views the world as a means to its own ends; thus it makes the world of less account than Self, and the Self sets bounds to the greatness of its goods. In contemplation, on the contrary, we start from the not-Self, and through its greatness the boundaries of Self are enlarged; through the infinity of the universe the mind which contemplates it achieves some share in infinity.
Thoughts?
Comments (28)
God who loves us creates us and wants to share life with us forever. Our love response takes shape in our praise and honor and service of the God of our life.
All the things in this world are also created because of God’s love and they become a context of gifts, presented to us so that we can know God more easily and make a return of love more readily.
As a result, we show reverence for all the gifts of creation and collaborate with God in using them so that by being good stewards we develop as loving persons in our care of God’s world and its development. But if we abuse any of these gifts of creation or, on the contrary, take them as the center of our lives, we break our relationship with God and hinder our growth as loving persons.
In everyday life, then, we must hold ourselves in balance before all created gifts insofar as we have a choice and are not bound by some responsibility. We should not fix our desires on health or sickness, wealth or poverty, success or failure, a long life or a short one. For everything has the potential of calling forth in us a more loving response to our life forever with God.
Our only desire and our one choice should be this: I want and I choose what better leads to God’s deepening life in me.
Do you? Or is it just because there are over 300 million of you?
Foreign aid given Per Capita
1. Norway $812.58
2. Sweden $701.10
3. Luxembourg $609.48
4. Denmark $447.05
5. Switzerland $421.37
6. Netherlands $338.38
7. United Kingdom $284.85
8. Finland $234.13
.
.
.
17. United States $ 95.52
And of course the question ought to be just how astronomical your charity is without universal health care, absence of free education or other "socialist" things that other, poorer countries pay with taxes? And you might argue that they indeed are poorer as they do take care of their poor people more than the US does. Yet if the government does the tasks that voluntary charities do your country, can these things be measured? Perhaps it goes against the American ethos of the self made man and the focus on the individual and not the collective.
Quoting Wallows
Well, is caring through charity the real response?
You really should ask and look how absolute povetry was eradicated in various countries, how countries that have been poor have gotten more affluent and solved their problems. And we've seen the biggest reduction in absolute povetry in the World during this era, so there's a lot of information about it. Even if charity is a good thing, seldom has some voluntary charity been the answer in eradicating povetry historically.
With the Betrand Russell quote, well, just what concrete solutions does it give? Because that is what we need, concrete answers to real problems. Usually people aren't happy with the answers at all.
Then what has been the deciding factor in reducing absolute poverty? Economics? Thanks for providing those statistics. I guess, my point was that charity is a strong factor, maybe not the deciding factor.
Quoting ssu
I don't know the grand solution to all our problems. I doubt ol' Bertie knew either. But, public engagement with problems would be the only thing that comes to my mind.
Not only capitalism and a free economy. Also you need strong institutions, political stability, a rule of law and a justice state, which are necessary for a well functioning economy. Otherwise capitalism will bring you corruption and at worst, a cleptrocracy where those in power will steal the wealth of your country and leave the population poor. The possibility of social upward mobility is also important: that even if you come from a poor background, you can rise to a more affluent class. Wealth distribution is important, which comes from things like that ordinary people can find decent jobs and can get affordable loans to buy a home for themselves, which the next generation can inherit. Hence wealth distribution doesn't only mean that you take from the rich and give to the poor through taxation, but that the labour force gets it share through better wages and has the ability to get loans just like the rich can. Hence povetry isn't eradicated by the wealthy giving alms to the poor, it's eradicated by the poor having the ability to improve their lives themselves.
Basically the largest change has been the "takeoff" in China and now also in India. Both countries basically scrapped the socialist planned economy models, even if China does plan a lot. One might argue that they changed an even more lousy economic system just to the lousy one we have.
Until such a point is reached, nothing good can come of it. And declaring compassion while willfully or in ignorance indulging in this insatiable lust for more is naive and hypocritical.
:ok:
BC: Right: Care more!
Quoting Wallows
BC: By actually doing caring. Feeling like you care is nice; what matters is that you actually perform care. So glad you care about starving people. Now go do something about it.
WS: Yeah, but I don't have enough resources to solve all of anybody's problems.
BC: Nobody asked you to solve all of anybody's problem. Find a problem that is shared by people and make a contribution (time, talent, or money) to that group of people.
For instance: Donate $ or food to a food shelf. Donate toothbrushes and toothpaste to shelters and food shelves. Toilet paper, shampoo, sanitary products for women, condoms, paper towel, etc. are all things that people who rely on shelters and food shelves may need. Buy some, whatever you can afford, and give it to them. If you live in the northland, men's and women's cotton sox and cotton T-shirts, men's underwear, and women's underwear (most sizes are needed, not in equal numbers...)
Places like St. Vincent de Paul take used clothing. Some places take all manner of household supplies (clean and in working order; they aren't junk haulers)
Volunteer some time at a shelter; people with problems are real people and interesting to talk to; quite often have good reasons for being in the situation they are in (bad things happen). "Be ye doers of the word and not only hearers of the word."
There are a whole host of ways to help other people.
Some might argue if this is really charity. As there are far more people than cars (1 billion of them), the two car limit doesn't sound as a sacrifice. (Especially if you're single)
Quoting Bitter Crank
Of course one can give donations to charities and even volunteer. Yet wouldn't be giving a job to an unemployed person be even more of a help?
It would indeed be better to employ someone without a job than to give them charity, but most people (who are working class) do not have it within their power to employ other people. So the best thing for those people to do is to act collectively in political activity to provide jobs.
But charity (caritas) is important to the individual giver and receiver, but especially the giver. Why? The act of caring for others establishes a connection between the carer and cared-for which validates their common humanity. The validation of common humanity is important because people tend to distance themselves from those in need. If the needy are distant enough, one can more conveniently forget about them.
Political activity can qualify as caritas et amo but the rigamarole of politics is likely to bury caritas et amo under layers of tedious procedure.
But, depression! Blah, blah, blah, I can't because, blah blah blah, depression.
Polls have for decades shown that Americans' estimate of US Government foreign aid to be far, far higher than it actually is. Many people think it is in the range of 5% to 10% of the federal budget. Of course it is nowhere close to that much. The Agency for International Development (part of the State Department) was budgeted for $50 billion 2016. $50 billion is peanuts in an almost $4 trillion dollar federal budget.
Besides $50 billion not being a big amount, no international effort operates without overhead, so significantly less than $50 billion ends up in goods and services overseas.
An international health NGO I worked for in the 1990s operated 3 small USAID projects, each budgeted at around $100,000 per year in a three year grant (Uganda, Kenya, and Nicaragua). These were child survival and maternal health programs. We were required to raise matching funds for about a third of each projects cost for a total of $100,000 in private donations over a three year period. The programs were good grass root capacity building projects. We delivered in the field, but we couldn't deliver in the domestic fundraising area. As a consequence, we were de-funded and went out of business.
When I suggest you volunteer, I'm not picturing you as SUPER VOLUNTEER who regularly performs miracles. I'm thinking of a small project, maybe involving 1 or 2 hours a week, doing something relatively easy and low stress. For instance, I used to volunteer an hour or two a week (or less) at a food coop. One of the jobs was cutting up large hunks of cheese into small hunks and wrapping them in plastic. This was low pressure, low skill work; there were other volunteers to chat with.
Are there any adult mental health day activity centers in your area? You might qualify as a client or volunteer, either one. At least the one's I've seen operate as drop in centers, sort of; they are places to spend some time at; socialization opportunities. Low stress, no great expectations. It would get you out of the house for a short while.
I'm not suggesting you start with anything more than quite small efforts. I picture you as being in your house most of the time. A worthwhile goal would be to go outside for a short walk every day. Do you do things of that sort? Do you have a yard in which you could mess around with? Plant some seeds, watch them grow.
I'm actually actively planning on growing pot in my mom's garage to pay off the mortgage bills and support my mom further. It is legal and not criminal, as it used to be since legalization took place.
I think it might be a great hobby that brings home the bacon. Other than that my days are filled with wallowing (something I am supremely good at), and posting on this forum.
But see:
https://fee.org/articles/americans-are-more-charitable-than-socially-conscious-europeans/
Quoting ssu
Education in America is free from kindergarten to 12th grade. Pre-kindergarten and college is also free in my state. https://www.gafutures.org/media/187610/faqs-hope-zm-scholarship-012918.pdf.
Your comment about the generosity of Americans being explainable due to their lack of spending on healthcare doesn't follow. Americans are the most personally generous nation and they spend the most per capita on healthcare. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends
Are you sarcastic, Hanover?
(What I was trying to say is that when things that charities try to help are taken care by the government and tax income, that ought to be remembered when comparing countries.)
Yes, indeed you do spend a huge amount more on health care than any other country per capita in the World. Even Norway with it's oil revenue and lavish welfare state doesn't come close. Only thing that you left out is that your health care system is one of the lousiest ones on average. The U.S. spends about twice what other high-income nations do on health care but has the lowest life expectancy and the highest infant mortality rates (with similar countries that is, typically Western OECD countries). And there's a ton of other examples, here's just a few.
- The U.S. has the highest rate of deaths amenable to health care among comparable countries (Western countries)
- Hospital admissions for preventable diseases are more frequent in the U.S. than in comparable countries
- The mortality rate for respiratory diseases is higher in the U.S. than in comparably wealthy countries
- The U.S. has higher rates of medical, medication, and lab errors than comparable countries
- Use of the emergency department in place of regular doctor visits is more common in the U.S. than in most comparable countries (which means far higher health care costs)
Yet indeed you can argue that the US has top-of-the-line medical care also and that is true: for rich people or those who's workplace offer great coverage.
You see, basically that generosity is that you give insurance companies and the health care industry huge profits. Perhaps also you make some doctors millionaires too. And this is totally logical: the health care system is largely there to make a profit, and indeed it does that well. Great generosity from you! Yet how this extremely expensive system simply just continues to thrive with people being OK with it is amazing. Seems like marketing and lobbying works.
Quoting Hanover
Are your universities also free? In fact only the UK is comparable in tuitions to the US.
If this answers your question, then credit has made this issue redundant. Although, as far as I'm aware, credit cannot be discharged even through bankrupture in regards to student debt. So, moot point on my part.
Better than helping is colaborating. Colaboration is based on a more symmetrical relationship, and there is no favour involved or poisoned gift; only equals working for common goals, and services that can be returned. Personally, I only help people who can return the favour, and only give gifts with permission and recognizing explicitly that it´s mostly me who´s being helped when someone accepts my present. I only colaborate with people that I care about, people who are in direct contact with me and are part of my circle. I would never help citizens from other nations or people I´ve never been with. Not even Jesus did that; love thy neighbour, the people around you; this was a good advice, because people around you can return the help, and it´s easier to know if you are helping or doing harm.
Of course, digital technologies mean that "your neighbour" might sometimes be thousands of kilometres away; but that´s okay if the relationship with them is personal, real and reciprocal.
You may think I´m Mr Scrooge, but actually I´ve been a volunteer in the past with Cáritas, Manos Unidas, green groups, and helped people I did not even know. I´ve also been on the receiving end of charity when I was in dire straits. But precisely those experiences taught me that there was a much more ethical and healthy way to act in the world.
Bravo. Kudos for your contributions and being a realist. :praise:
Not at all. You're consistent only in your negativity toward America, but inconsistent in this debate. Your position was that an American charitable giving evaluation had to account for the selfish withholding of money from public healthcare. The problem with that argument is that American healthcare isn't cheap and doesn't provide Americans extra money to spend on charity. Your discussion of the inefficiencies of American healthcare was entirely off point of the OP, but directly on point to your anti-American theme. Quoting ssu
I pay $4,000 total tuition per year for 2 kids both at major research universities (that's $1,000 per semester for each child). That's easily paid for with a part time job. The world fills our universities, they are open to all levels of achievement, and are the envy of the world.
I've gone from depressed to angry honestly. Everyone is like YOLO they say it like they know what they are talking about (as they pop pills and drink everyday).
I think American culture is hypocritical, it says one thing does another. Everyone has their one liner of truth but if you really looked at the choices people make... (I speak mainly of my own generation and what I see.) I point to the fact we are apathetic like the Germans in WW2. Something is going on.
Bertrand Russell to me is saying open your eyes and think about where everything stands. There is a vast world out there that can easily be corrupted by the unexamined life. By only thinking about immediate affairs and shortsightedness. We are prisoner's of our own minds. We need to be free.
How do you teach children ethics? How do you teach people to care?
For the people talking about aid expenditures: I got a call to donate to veterans. I asked what % of a dollar goes to the vet. Answer 17% The rest goes to the org for it to function. Do you think they are counting the dollar or 17%? I rather go down to the VA and hand out a $20 bill than give the business $100 and help only with $17. Not only that they have an agenda most of the time.
Also, Americans blame disabled people for the economy while shelling out for corporate welfare. How is that principled logic... blame the poor bastard as the head honchos get a grab for it.
My hypothesis is government and business are in bed together. And the laws they are making while not all bad protects their clout at the expense of the consumer and tax payer (apathy). Moral relativism protect their philosophy and a rationale for acting that way. It's an excuse and the more people that believe it, the more perception becomes reality. Here we are everything stays the same.
Excuse the rant... just want to understand.
Of course it is. ALL societies, ALL cultural and religious institutions, ALL individuals everywhere are hypocritical. Hypocrisy is part of the human condition. That's why we advise each other to not believe everything they read and hear and not take others' statements at face value. People aren't hypocritical all the time, and you won't detect each instance that they are being authentic.
Quoting Drek
And once you escape your mind, where will you be? Yes, in a real sense we are all trapped in our skulls with nothing but a stream of second-hand information from the senses to inform us of what's "out there". Carry that far enough and you end up with encapsulated solipsism: "I am the only mind that exists".
Quoting Drek
You teach them the simple rules of ethical behavior when they are young, and then you model the desired behavior as they grow up into adulthood. Show your children what ethical behavior looks like, and correct them when they behave wrongly. Show them what caring behavior looks like.
Fundraising: There is no reason to donate money to rotten charities. Go here for ratings of charities.
https://www.charitywatch.org/join (may be a donation/fee)
https://www.charitynavigator.org
BBB Wise Giving Alliance (Better Business Bureau)``
You can call your state's Attorney General to find out if the charity you are interested in is currently being prosecuted. The IRS also reveals some information about charities.
Give to charities that use less than 25% of their income for all overhead activities -- including fundraising. (Charities that use more may not be crooks; they may be merely incompetent.)
Here is a list of police/veteran fundraising outfits that Consumers Union considers least reputable:
Quoting Drek
Yes, sir, they are not only in bed but they are fucking each other's brains out.
A more gracious quote on the matter from Karl Marx: Government is merely a committee for organizing the affairs of the Bourgeoisie.
IF they are doing that, what is our obligations then? Just take it up tha ass? I suppose been doing it since Marx was around... at least
How...do...we...live? So morals are dead? So fuck the founding father's then? What do we use as guidance then? Satan?
You have a republic... if you can keep it. So what are we really then a corpocracy?
Can't beat em' join em'?
There are several good guidance systems kicking around. Most of them are from religious sources, but there are secular ones too. Nothing wrong with religious sources. The ethics taught don't really have to be paired with all of the religious beliefs. For instance, Jesus said "love one another." You don't have to believe in the resurrection to follow that ethical teaching. Love one another, take care of each other, be kind, be considerate, be responsible. It's not very complicated.
Quoting Drek
Your obligation is to the nation or your community, not to the debased spectacle that politicians and big money can put on. I love my country; I don't love the the behavior of the elected representatives.
Quoting Drek
No, Donald will do that for you.
Quoting Drek
Well... yes. To be precise, we are ruled by an oligarchy: a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution. Oligarchs are usually either very rich or they are well armed.
Wrong, you simply have to take into account all of the expenses. Just as Tzeentch above comments.
Quoting Hanover
And here there are no tuitions for universities. Hence, and hopefully you would get my point, to compare the the two systems you have to look at how much more taxes then I pay than you. So if you give to voluntary charities there, you do have to take into account similar aid is given otherwise through taxes.
And with health care the American system basically is twice more expensive, even if we have universal health care.
Quoting Hanover
Indeed. I've myself pointed out that basically in research and the volume of scientific papers just one single Ivy League university, MIT, is equivalent in scale to all universities and R&D sector here. Btw, in MIT nine months’ tuition and fees for 2017–2018 are $49,892. (Should be added that a third of the students attend tuition-free and half have scholarships. The other half however...)
The criteria to select the projects is very important. If people in a country know that they have to meet certain criteria of sustainability, good management, maximum commitment of local communities and so on, you are shaping how things are done and supporting people who want to do things right but are facing enormous cultural and political difficulties. For instance, say that a new school wants to teach sexual education to girls, and the imam says no; if the money for the school (that is rarely just a school, it is usually many more things in a small village) is conditional on the implementation of a sexual health program, the headmaster can bring people on his side over the imam or priest.
When progressives state that this strategy is equal to unfairly "impose" civilization on supposedly pristine cultures, they simply do not know what they are talking about. They are siding with the elements in a community that want nothing to change, especially the status quo.
For example, the U.K. gives a lot of aid money to Tanzania for birth control programs; but the government, which is pro-natality and literally ask Tanzanian women to have as many babies as they can, have been giving the millions to Jihadist groups: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6172115/Britain-funds-45million-family-planning-programme-Tanzania.html
This is what happens when you give without real compromises, criteria, supervision, "imposing civilization" on the project you fund. You feel good, but the money is actually helping those who oppose the betterment of a society against those who are struggling for a change.
I quitted Manos Unidas when the Spanish Church wanted some of the money of the project to go to build churches; but I learnt a lot about how charity is done right and professionally even if I was only a volunteer. The bottom line for me is that ethical behaviour only happens when decisions include rational thought and knowledge.