"This I Believe" is a regular broadcast on N.P.R. that is basically regular people, and some famous people, voicing their beliefs that helped or is helping them become a better person. The topics of faith, love, kindness, hope, and many others are written and voiced out loud in this weekly broadcast. Heres a link to the site: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4538138
The first essay/recording from "This I Believe" that I was drawn to was written and voiced by 16 year old Josh Rittenberg. I was drawn to this one because, for one, it was written by someone the same age as me, and two, it was about his belief in looking forwards to tomorrow. Here's a link to the essay/recording: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5232116
In his essay, Josh talks about overhearing his dad talking to his mom about how their generation didn't leave a bright enough future for future generations so that the future generations can live in peace. The dad goes on about how the world will go to chaos in our (mine and everyone else around 16) lifetime. It was interesting to listen to how Josh proved that our future holds some hope for success and a brighter time for mankind. He uses examples from the past and how eventually, the hard times in the past turned from bad to good. Me, I have always tried to stay optimistic about the future ahead, and how, no matter what, mankind will always move ahead in search of new answers, ideals, and questions. I too believe that you can't always be pessimistic about the future, because no one, absolutely no one, knows for sure what the future has in store for us. Its part of life, and whether those surprises down the road are good or bad, I think that surely we can overcome it or continue onwards.
A second essay I listened to was about how failure is a good thing by
Monday, January 29, 2007
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Peer Pressure? How About Parent Pressure?
When I was planning out my next year's curriculum with my parents, I found myself being pushed to do some classes that I didn't even want to go into for next year. It felt as though someone was force feeding me a horrid new flavor of baby food (lets say "fish guts and bug" mush). Also, at times in our discussion, it felt like I was trying to convince a stone wall to move aside for me. In the end though, I got my parent's permission to do all the classes I wanted to do for next year. I am pretty sure we have all experienced parent pressure before, ranging from the extreme with your parents controlling everything you do, to the mild with your parents just trying to let you know how they feel. I know I have. Besides this incident, my parents have pressured me to do things in the past that I objected to do. Sometimes the things they pressured me to do turned out to be meaningful in experience while others were not as happy and meaningful. Sometimes I learned from or like the things they forced me into, and sometimes I just hated it. One example, is when my dad pressured me to get drum set lessons. At that time in my life (around 7th grade) I thought percussion (band) was moderately boring and a waste of time to practice for. But after my first 3 or so lessons, I started to reanalyze my situation as a percussionist. I started to really listen to music and feel the rhythms and beats. I started to get into playing and listening to the sounds and beats I created. I began to love the drums and from that point on, tried my hardest in becoming not only better as a drum set player, but a percussionist in our school's band and marching band. So as you can see, sometimes parents do know better. As for the times that I hated what they forced me to do...well I think you have some experiences that are similar. Especially if your parents are Japanese or Asian business men and women. The question that encompasses this entire post is: do parents always know whats best for you? My answer is that 75% of the time my parents know what is best for me and 25% they just don't know me enough. These percentages may be different for you, or so you think. Heck maybe even my percentages are off. But I think that most of the times, we should all listen to our parents because they have learned from the mistakes they made over their lifetime, they have lived through many pains, joys, and sadness, and they were also kids like us trying to do their best to fit the shoes their parents gave them. So when, hopefully, I become a parent, I can remember how many times my parents were right about things I should and shouldn't do and teach my kids accordingly.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Our Moral Responsibility?
Just a few questions on The Singer Solution to World Poverty and a few connections and comments on a video entitled "Four Generations." Here's a Link to the video: http://www.thompsonjazz.com/movies/waterbuffalo/flash-hi.htm
After reading Singer's essay, I had mixed feelings of sadness, anger, regret, hope, loss, and skepticism. Here's a couple of questions I had after reading this essay.
-What is our moral responsibility for others who aren't as fortunate?
-Should it be considered a choice or an obligation for those who are more fortunate than others to help people that are less fortunate that they probably don't even know?
-If it is an obligation or moral responsibility for those who are more fortunate than others to help out the less fortunate (by donations, public service, community projects, etc...), where does the responsibility end?
-If it is a choice, can other people (who did help) blame those more fortunate that made a choice not to help the less fortunate for not helping out? Do they have the right to?
-How much responsibility is too much?
-Could we really change and touch the lives of those we help out significantly?
After watching the video (link is up on top, if you didn't watch it and are reading this), I felt good that a family who needed a helping hand got one that was maybe more than they might have ever thought they would get in their life time. It felt...well...satisfying. This video had some connections to Singer's Solution to World Poverty. A connection that I made was that donations from people in the United States were gathered and sent to a less fortunate and desperate family really did help that particular family, in a big way. In Singer's essay, he talks about how our donations could make a difference and would give us moral satisfaction. After watching this video and having the feeling of goodness, but also having a ping of regret for not even participating in this one particular satisfying international project, in me, I do believe Singer was right. Another connection to the video I made with Singer's essay was for how little we could change someones life. In Singer's essay, he talks about how for as little as $200 we could change a sickly 2 year old into a healthy 6 year old. In the video, for as little as $250, we could buy a poor farmer in China a water buffalo to help plow his fields and help out with daily chores for about a 15 year span. It is quite amazing. It makes me wonder what I should or could do, which is probably the whole point of both the video and Singer's essay.
After reading Singer's essay, I had mixed feelings of sadness, anger, regret, hope, loss, and skepticism. Here's a couple of questions I had after reading this essay.
-What is our moral responsibility for others who aren't as fortunate?
-Should it be considered a choice or an obligation for those who are more fortunate than others to help people that are less fortunate that they probably don't even know?
-If it is an obligation or moral responsibility for those who are more fortunate than others to help out the less fortunate (by donations, public service, community projects, etc...), where does the responsibility end?
-If it is a choice, can other people (who did help) blame those more fortunate that made a choice not to help the less fortunate for not helping out? Do they have the right to?
-How much responsibility is too much?
-Could we really change and touch the lives of those we help out significantly?
After watching the video (link is up on top, if you didn't watch it and are reading this), I felt good that a family who needed a helping hand got one that was maybe more than they might have ever thought they would get in their life time. It felt...well...satisfying. This video had some connections to Singer's Solution to World Poverty. A connection that I made was that donations from people in the United States were gathered and sent to a less fortunate and desperate family really did help that particular family, in a big way. In Singer's essay, he talks about how our donations could make a difference and would give us moral satisfaction. After watching this video and having the feeling of goodness, but also having a ping of regret for not even participating in this one particular satisfying international project, in me, I do believe Singer was right. Another connection to the video I made with Singer's essay was for how little we could change someones life. In Singer's essay, he talks about how for as little as $200 we could change a sickly 2 year old into a healthy 6 year old. In the video, for as little as $250, we could buy a poor farmer in China a water buffalo to help plow his fields and help out with daily chores for about a 15 year span. It is quite amazing. It makes me wonder what I should or could do, which is probably the whole point of both the video and Singer's essay.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Reflection: Singer's Solution to World Poverty
This is a Reflection on an essay by Peter Singer, here is a link for those who haven't read the Essay before: http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/singermag.html
Singer's Solution to World Poverty is not an old idea in which people, who are fortunate enough to live a comfortable life in modernized countries, should donate the money they spend on excess luxuries to charities around the world that help children who live a miserable life. A big question that he shoves at you in this essay is whether you are living a morally decent life by giving no or little money to charity. In this essay he gives two stories about two people who did different things that would be considered to be indecent or immoral by most people. We have Dora, who sent a homeless kid to an unknown house for 1,000 dollars. Later on, she learns that (or maybe knew all a long) the location was probably a organ transplant facility where they killed street kids for their organs, which sell for a lot on the black market or for some dying old rich guy. In the end though, she decides to save the kid. Next we have Bob with his new treasured car. He parks near the end of a railway siding and goes walking. Along the tracks he sees a runaway train with a kid on the tracks right in the way of it. He is near a train track switch, which would divert the train away from the kid, but then the train would then proceed to crush Bob's new car. So, Bob decides not to throw the switch.
These two stories provide us with a focal point and examples of what most of us would consider immoral. I agree with Singer's point in that these two people's actions were not right. It was interesting to see how he tied in these stories into his essay. He addresses the problem of how Bob wouldn't provide any sacrifices for the life of the kid on the tracks, and the problem of people like Dora who spend their money on luxuries like new TVs or new styles of clothing, and others. One of the observations about society today that I liked from this essay was on second page of the essay, the last full paragraph. He says: "Suppose that there were more owners of priceless vintage cars - Carol, Dave, Emma, Fred and so on, down to Ziggy - all in exactly the same situation as Bob, with their own siding and their own switch, all sacrificing the child in order to preserve their own cherished car. Would that make it all right for Bob to do the same? To answer this question affirmatively is to endorse follow-the-crowd ethics - the kind of ethics that led many Germans to look away when the Nazi atrocities were being committed. We do not excuse them because others were behaving no better."
One idea I don’t agree with him entirely is where he says that every one should give away every penny spent on luxuries. I think that people should afford to have slack and be able to buy things that would not be considered a “necessity.” Why you ask? Well I mean if people were troubled about spending money on luxuries and instead gave everything to charity, it would be a pretty dull world for one. Another reason is that a lot of people try hard in life and work hard to be able to afford some luxuries and not give it all away to charity. If you make it immoral for people to spend money on luxuries then their goals and their hard work become meaning less to those people. Also, think about the effect on trade and commerce. Would there be as fast of a growth in technology, innovation, and modernization if more people started to buy less and less of things like new television sets, computers, DVDs, video games, and others? Although I maybe wrong in saying these things, it was just something I thought about and just wanted to ask and discuss out loud.
Overall this essay was pretty good, reminding me of my duty as someone who was born into moderate luxury. I wonder though, if any community out there would ever try such a solution.
Singer's Solution to World Poverty is not an old idea in which people, who are fortunate enough to live a comfortable life in modernized countries, should donate the money they spend on excess luxuries to charities around the world that help children who live a miserable life. A big question that he shoves at you in this essay is whether you are living a morally decent life by giving no or little money to charity. In this essay he gives two stories about two people who did different things that would be considered to be indecent or immoral by most people. We have Dora, who sent a homeless kid to an unknown house for 1,000 dollars. Later on, she learns that (or maybe knew all a long) the location was probably a organ transplant facility where they killed street kids for their organs, which sell for a lot on the black market or for some dying old rich guy. In the end though, she decides to save the kid. Next we have Bob with his new treasured car. He parks near the end of a railway siding and goes walking. Along the tracks he sees a runaway train with a kid on the tracks right in the way of it. He is near a train track switch, which would divert the train away from the kid, but then the train would then proceed to crush Bob's new car. So, Bob decides not to throw the switch.
These two stories provide us with a focal point and examples of what most of us would consider immoral. I agree with Singer's point in that these two people's actions were not right. It was interesting to see how he tied in these stories into his essay. He addresses the problem of how Bob wouldn't provide any sacrifices for the life of the kid on the tracks, and the problem of people like Dora who spend their money on luxuries like new TVs or new styles of clothing, and others. One of the observations about society today that I liked from this essay was on second page of the essay, the last full paragraph. He says: "Suppose that there were more owners of priceless vintage cars - Carol, Dave, Emma, Fred and so on, down to Ziggy - all in exactly the same situation as Bob, with their own siding and their own switch, all sacrificing the child in order to preserve their own cherished car. Would that make it all right for Bob to do the same? To answer this question affirmatively is to endorse follow-the-crowd ethics - the kind of ethics that led many Germans to look away when the Nazi atrocities were being committed. We do not excuse them because others were behaving no better."
One idea I don’t agree with him entirely is where he says that every one should give away every penny spent on luxuries. I think that people should afford to have slack and be able to buy things that would not be considered a “necessity.” Why you ask? Well I mean if people were troubled about spending money on luxuries and instead gave everything to charity, it would be a pretty dull world for one. Another reason is that a lot of people try hard in life and work hard to be able to afford some luxuries and not give it all away to charity. If you make it immoral for people to spend money on luxuries then their goals and their hard work become meaning less to those people. Also, think about the effect on trade and commerce. Would there be as fast of a growth in technology, innovation, and modernization if more people started to buy less and less of things like new television sets, computers, DVDs, video games, and others? Although I maybe wrong in saying these things, it was just something I thought about and just wanted to ask and discuss out loud.
Overall this essay was pretty good, reminding me of my duty as someone who was born into moderate luxury. I wonder though, if any community out there would ever try such a solution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)