Monday, November 5, 2012

Re: Inspired

Famine, Influence, and Morality should be a wildly outdated piece of writing. It was published in 1971, after all. Surely, in this day and age we have gotten past such horrifying situations. However, I find it to be fascinatingly relevant to my future plans. I found it while poking around on some blogs about the PC.

My usual lack of visual verbalization strikes as I dig further and further into the whys of life. The more I read the more I realize that while I love what I do, I might need to change directions in order to be truly happy.

As I sat across from a new face I had to answer the question "Why do you do it?" in regards to my recent volunteering endeavors. My first reaction was "Why would you even have to ask that?" but instead I fumbled through putting into words a gut feeling that is as inexplicable as much as it is constant.

Basically, if I have worked hard to get to where I am in life then why should I not give back?

As Singer so much more eloquently put it:

"...if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it."

From where my deep-rooted derision stems I do not know. I just know that I missed out on the fun of philosophy by being home schooled, and that I feel it to be true with all of my being. My sheer anger when walking through a mall has dissipated to a muted sense of sadness, but it still lingers in the back of my mind.

"People do not ordinarily judge in the way I have suggested they should. Most people reserve their moral condemnation for those who violate some moral norm, such as the norm against taking another person's property. They do not condemn those who indulge in luxury instead of giving to famine relief. But given that I did not set out to present a morally neutral description of the way people make moral judgments, the way people do in fact judge has nothing to do with the validity of my conclusion."

"If this is an explanation of our common distinction between duty and supererogation, however, it is not a justification of it. The moral point of view requires us to look beyond the interests of our own society. Previously, as I have already mentioned, this may hardly have been feasible, but it is quite feasible now. From the moral point of view, the prevention of the starvation of millions of people outside our society must be considered at least as pressing as the upholding of property norms within our society."

I will let you read through the rest of the article if you so choose. Essentially, I just wanted to bookmark one of my forays into philosophy of my own choosing. Reading this made so many of my musings make sense and also to not feel so isolated in my thoughts. 

Also, I am in a nearly constant state of chilled out reflection. Pandora stations of choice: Dustin O'Halloran and Sigur Ros. Found this gem awhile back. Suits life right now. 

On the Nature of Daylight by Max Richter

No comments: