When I first moved to Chicago my old boss, a proud midwesterner, would reassure me that winter was the time when we all slowed down. My mind would drift to images of cocoa, days at work that were spent in cozy sweaters watching snow fall outside, and intimate conversations by fireplaces. These things are tenable, but but most of the winter consisted in taking frantic pictures of EVERY TIME it snowed, trying not slip on ice, and wondering why the heck did I move away from my home which was 80 degrees in January?
This winter is supposed to be worse. I don't know if I'm mentally prepared for it. Like a trauma victim I get flashbacks to when it was painful to be outside or what it felt like to take off a bajillion layers every time you went inside. I'm just whining. I'm not a midwester yet, prairie folks don't whine. I need to compose a Lutheran sensibility about that matter and buck up! After all, didn't I spend every winter of my childhood "snow hunting" only to come up empty handed each time? No need to hunt anymore. There's stilly something romantic in waking up and looking out your window and saying "first snow of the season". Of course followed by running throughout the house like a mad woman waking everyone up by screaming"SNOW, THERE'S SNOW!!!!"
Check back in with me in a month. Winter is coming. Prepare. I was born in the long summer.
In thinking about the state of the world and the global poverty
crisis I think one can quickly arrive at the conclusion that we are
doing something wrong. We are the privileged in the world
who have obtained such privilege through hundreds of years
of oppression, colonialism, and a general lack of concern for the
rights of others. Thomas Pogge has something to say about this, so
does Peter Singer. Both believe that the "developed"
nations are responsible for the massive scale of global poverty,
Pogge approaches the issue from a more palatable standpoint of
positive rights while Singer (in true fashion) argues that we possess
a positive duty to the poor.
Before continuing I'd like to throw out some facts. More
people die from conditions relating to poverty than have ever died
from any genocide combined. To eradicate poverty would be cheaper
than to engage in a war for change. And as Pogge says, to
this regard our institutions are engaged in the biggest
cover up of all history. Certainly if we can argue for intervention
in the Holocaust we can also argue that we must do something to
prevent all of these unnecessary poverty related deaths, right?
I think so, but we can still ask ourselves whether this a
reasonable comparison to make given that the extremity of the Nazi
case? Is it the same thing to directly infringe on the human rights
of an other in a face to face situation than it is to perform the
same act, but from an anonymous distance? I believe that there are a
couple of methods of approaching this question that will provide
insight as to how there is ultimately little difference between these
two cases where guilt is concerned. In either case we must recognize
that others have the positive right to life, for instance, which we
have violated either whether it be indirect or direct.
Firstly, by taking a utilitarian approach one can see that the
plight affecting the world's poor is just as bad or perhaps if not
worse according to the strict utilitarian, than the atrocities
committed by the Nazi's. World poverty produces substantially more
harm than fascists ever did and it is less costly to eradicate than
fascism is because it does not require military engagement, for
instance. If it is our goal to maximize good or pleasure and
decrease suffering then we have ethically failed. The utilitarian
approach however possesses limitations that do not seem to appeal on
a moralistic level in the sense that we might not want to limit our
responsibility to just the “worse off” atrocities; rather, we can
aim to maintain the basic rights of subsistence for everyone.
A thought experiment comes to mind: If one were driving along the
highway in a brand new Mercedes, but was shocked to see a bloody and
almost dead victim of a tragic accident on the side of the road, one
would almost always stop pick up the passenger and drive them to the
hospital even it meant ruining the interior of the car. It is hard to
conceive of a person who would say “Sorry, but the repairing this
leather would just be far too costly” and drive away letting the
poor individual bleed to death. Yet we are constantly exposed to
stories, images, and appeals to help from those in need. If one is
starving to death in far away country or even in your own country for
that matter, wouldn't it be just as wrong to ignore the cry for help
from a dying individual just because of a financial burden? Should
proximity to an individual limit our rights to them? A possible
response that could be made is that this argument relies too heavily
on a notion of “positive duties”, yet perhaps if we alter the
scenario to include that it was you who accidentally hit the
individual by the road we can see where Pogge's distress lies.
It is not just that we are actively choosing
to ignore the call of others in distress, but that they are in
distress because of our actions. This is a good point for critique;
yet, there are many convincing counter arguments, which demonstrate
that we all possess blame where world poverty is concerned (without
going into those here and now). I believe that to say that we as
individuals don't have say over our institutions is to some degree
express a real concern for the state of affairs. Still, if enough
people are willing to admit that we have no control then surely we
must also desire control? And if control cannot be given under such a
corrupt system then we are responsible to change it.
The danger resides in a resignation. One might resign themselves
to the notion that they cannot help to alleviate global poverty, that
they cannot change their corrupt institutions which ensures global
poverty's continuation, or even that they are not able to stop the
genocide of a group of people as undertaken by a fascist regime. In
any of these cases it is a resignation of one's agency to corrupt
institutions that allows for death of others to continue. I think
that we always have to believe that we can change things for the
better, no matter how disenfranchised we may be in reality. If one
has the slightest opportunity to voice what is wrong with the world
then we must take it and if one does not have a voice we must act so
that they can be assured one.
The argument that many individuals in wealthy nations for
instance, are too victims of corrupt institutions, is not lost on me.
In this respect we are in the same boat as the Germans; however there
is a key difference here. Unlike the German's world poverty is
primarily caused by immoral institutions that are built upon a
histories worth of corruption. This system is highly more complex
than what occurred under the Nazi regime although its affect is
similar. Because the guilt here lies primarily with institutions it
is not that we should all be punished for actively and intentionally
harming millions of people, but rather that we need to be woken up
from our apathetic slumber and realize the realities of the
institutions that we support via our very benefiting from them.
--------
I also just had to share this video although I believe it is more closely related to Singer's argument in favor of positive duties. Essentially Singer says that if we gave up on the most minimal of luxuries and instead donated that money we could eradicate world poverty quickly and efficiently Here is Louis CK talking about just that!
Some
more thoughts on this subject just because I think it's interesting!
In
the way that metaphysics appears as the study of being we can examine
that which gives being meaning and possibly call it desire or eros.
To talk about that which isn't is simply to talk about a separate but
particular reality of influence. I do not have access to eros since
that which I most desire is always already out of my reach, in this
way we can see an alternative version of metaphysics presented:
metaphysics is that which does not claim mastery over reality, but
seeks to engage with the reality of experience. It appears that
philosophy is transcendent in this way and has something to say not
about infinity itself, but our relationship to it via desire. This
picture of metaphysics is presented as an alternative to the one
painted by what seems to historically be the philosophical approach,
at least taken by modern philosophers who sought mastery of the world
through the lone self as the “master thinker”. Instead here we
are confronted with a self that is lacking and in this lack
desperately reaches out towards the infinite in an already failed
attempt.
This
relates to my initial feelings of solitude as associated with this
concept of desire. The notion that that which does not exist could
force me into self awareness via an encounter with infinity is quite
alarming. Furthermore the idea that we are reaching out towards
others who will always be out of my reach in an attempt to answer
their call in our own wounded and failed fashion is solitude at its
best. There is something poetic in this notion I think, that despite
the insurmaountability of it all we are required to keep responding;
yet, I wonder if others also see this relationship between philosophy
and desire in such a fashion.
What are your thoughts?!
Is
desire a condemnation or a blessing? What is the meaning of our
efforts? I would be interested in an existential perspective on this
question as well.
.JPG)