Showing posts with label altruism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label altruism. Show all posts

November 13, 2008

A Korean Opinion on Obama

This is long. Really long. My main point ends in the paragraph after the story of Sai. Feel free to stop there. :)

So Mr. Obama's the President-Elect.

I'm sure some of you are elated. And some of you are hiding your face in your hands, convinced you've witnessed the end of an age.

The reaction among the people I interact with in Korea is favorable to Mr. Obama. My fellow teachers like him, though one mentioned worries about Mr. Obama's negative stance towards Free Trade Agreements (in the end we both agreed Fair Trade is better for everyone).

My students love him. They don't really know much about issues, but they have an interesting insight: When I asked them why they prefer Mr. Obama to Mr. McCain, they universally replied, "Because he's kind."

Hm. Kindness. It is an attractive trait. Unkindness is exactly what dissuaded me from respecting Ms. Palin (and now that McCain's aides are talking, it turns out the unkindness is one among many disagreeable symptoms). Kindness seems a great platform to run on, and a great reason to elect a human as president. Mr. Obama did run the gentler campaign, although Mr. McCain and Lieberman both generally showed themselves to be gentlemen. Ms. Palin was the pitbull chewing on the childs arm, a strong contrast to Mr. Obama who showed himself respectful, even-tempered and, well, kind.

My students and co-teachers have wanted to know what I think. I've told them the same thing every time, and it's not a short answer.

The pundits' extreme approval or abhorrence of the President-Elect reminds me of an old story about hasty conclusions (and it turns out the story has it's own name in Korean, which I can't spell). There are many versions, but here's one:

---------------

An old man named Sai lived near the border of China. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit.

"Such bad luck," they said sympathetically.

"We'll see," Sai replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses.
"How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed.
"We'll see," replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune.

"We'll see," answered Sai.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated Sai on how well things had turned out.

"We'll see" said Sai.

----------------

Some of you are mourning Mr. Obama's election. Some of you are cheering. I say, wait -- we will see.

He's inherited the toughest set of issues since and perhaps even surpassing FDR's: two wars; a volatile economy; a country with no remaining diplomatic or international political capital; a nation divided into two camps which don't understand each other and won't, because they shun each other; an abused earth full of abused people -- often at the hands of United State's interests; the weight of an immediate 46% disapproval rating.

Mr. Obama can't fix everything. He's not a messiah or anything the conspiracy theorists have accused him of. He's a human who just got hired to the most stressful job available. And just like the rest of us humans, he needs needs people showing up at the game, needs rest and kindness and applause. He faces every emotional need the rest of us do, but he has to do it with 46% of the voting populace telling him they don't like him for various reasons, most of which have nothing to do with him as a person.

The guy's under a lot of pressure, and the problems seem to be growing, at the moment.
Which is where you and everyone you know come in.

This is our country (well, if you live here or can claim citizenship), and it's our responsibility to fix it.

Your opinion of Mr. Obama, or of any of his policies, is irrelevant, completely. Any crumbling of the United States during his administration will be your fault, not his. The president of the United States is not responsible for the health of the United States. The president is the chief diplomat and signatory. The legislature is responsible for the health of the nation. They represent you, the people. The president represents the states. That's why they're chosen through the electoral college, a group of electors chosen by the states. You choose the legislature, and they, not the president, speak for you. You and the States balance the power of the nation, both limited by the courts.

Mr. Obama has been placed in a role that can't legislate. He has executive orders, but most presidents avoid using them (except at the very beginning or end of their terms, to fortify their party's positions or to start with a clean slate). His administration will pass policy ideas to the house and senate, and sometimes even write the laws, but you, via your representatives, pass the laws.

Yes, you. You can influence your congresspeople to vote against policies you don't like, or to vote for policies you do like. If you live in a district controlled by the party you don't belong to, you still have a say in what gets passed.

Voting is not democracy. (Most dictatorships vote too.) Democracy is direct decision making by the people with no intermediary government. Of course, we have representatives, because we're not a democracy. We're a republic. A federation of states. But we hold to democratic ideals, and our congresspeople want to get reelected, so they do what we want them to. Or I should say, they do the will of those who talk the most and loudest.

Your responsibility for your country goes beyond November 4th. You also are in charge of what laws pass, what taxes are levied, what wars are fought. What happens in this country is up to you.

Beyond your responsibility to country, and to yourself, you are responsible to your fellow humans. We are all members of a social contract: wishing to avoid a lonely, exposed and miserable existence, we group with other people and each give up a little freedom so that we can all have a bit of security. Government is one means to that security. Another means to that security, perhaps the one most dependent on you, is altruism.

Our kind actions towards each other will benefit our country more than legislation, for two reasons: first, we're divided on the proper type of legislation, but likely agree on kindness. Second, legislation is general. It's vague imparticularity prevents it from precisely treating the needs of individuals. Your altruism, on the other hand, can directly address pertinent immediate and perpetual needs. Enough small changes can have huge, exponential effects.

Altruism is a more important democratic action than voting. By doing good you positively alter the course of our country and society. Perhaps you cannot specifically dictate whether or not Mexican immigrants will be offered citizenship, but that likely will be because other people influenced their legislators, or were altruistic enough to eliminate the problem in another manner (for example, ending Free Trade Agreements that devestate Mexican farmers, thus reducing the necesity of their emigration).

But you can make the United States more inhabitable by making it a safer place, a place where people trust each other, support each other and like each other, all by being kind to other people. By improving the environment we live in, we will improve our lives and our country.

What Mr. Obama can do is remind us citizens and sojourners who we are and what principles we agree to live by in our social contract. Principles in which I agree that another human may have liberty to non-violently act however they wish in exchange for my liberty to do the same. In which I agree no one is guilty until they're proved thus univocally. In which I agree we're in this together, and not in this seperately. We rise and fall as one; we are E pluribus unum.

We are the change we need, not Mr. Obama. He's just there to point the way and to tell other countries where we're going and how much they're going to like the way we remodeled and how they're welcome here, all of them, anyone, so long as they're willing to work for the common good.

Love to all of you, and peace, hopefully.

December 16, 2007

Stranger to Oneself

I finished reading Camus' The Stranger a couple of days ago. He makes this eeriest point clear: whether you die at 30 or 70, you die. Which leaves a thoughtful person (such as myself) utterly confused. If death is the end, then there's little point in prolonging life. Nor do we feel compelled to act, whether murderously or altruistically. Yet, we do act altruistically and murderously. It seems clear why humans developed murder -- to defeat a threat to their lives. But why altruism? A recent article in the Atlantic argued altruism developed through typical adaptive cycles where communal, selfless species survived, thus reproducing philanthropic genes. Which seems to say, scientifically at least (and most religions would argue the same), we act kindly because we prioritize existence over non-existence.

So, if we murder and assist both in accordance to our belief that we prefer to exist, what do we do when life becomes entirely absurd, meaningless and death seems no different than life (for life and death mean the same)? Do we go on living? And if we live, in what manner do we live if we may die in another moment? As Pascal wrote: "Between us, and Hell or Heaven, there is only life between the two, which is the most fragile thing in the world."

Sartre posited an answer to the questioning of Camus' era (and ours): there's no compulsion to do anything, yet we're not dead, so we must choose. Even suicide is a choice. Even standing still, inactive, is choosing. There is no imperative to choose one way of life, say serial-killer, over any other, say philanthropist.

However, Sartre notes that when we choose, we choose for all people -- we demonstrate our preferred course of action and others may choose to follow it if it produces the sort of life they desire. So, Sartre essentially appeals to Kant's categorical imperative: Act as if all humans will be forced to act as you do. Another philosopher said similarly, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I give away my disposition by setting murder and altruism in opposition. Clearly I pose a dichotomy that prefers generosity and service to totem-murder, incest and patricide -- Freud's three universal taboos.

As long as I recall, I have been biased towards altruism. Only recently have I learned words to describe my reasoning. John Rawls, another philosopher, proposed a thought experiment to help us decide how to act. He suggested when faced with a decision, we imagine a veil separates us from the situation, so we do not know what party we will play in the situation. We may be the king; we may be the pauper (there is equal chance). Since we may be the pauper, naturally we will ensure that should we be the pauper, we will be well respected, protected and happy. We want the most benefit for ourselves in the case we should be the least of the society. Rawls called his principle MiniMax: the maximum benefit for the minimum person.

My selfishness masquerades as altruism. I only act to provide an example I hope others will choose to follow. I want the least to be cared for in case I one day am the least. It's why I pick up hitchhikers: to build up my hitchhikers' Karma so I'll get picked up next time I'm thumbing.

I've laid out a couple of viable ways to a satisfying, altruistic life. However, I do not know if I live them, though I try.

Countless questions bother me. Here are two: first, if life is absurd and we evolved, why do we create? There seems no point in striving to make sculpture, music, epic photo montages, poetry and novels. Friendship and altruism are explained by the Atlantic article, but creativity has yet to receive much treatment in philosophy (please, if I overstate, direct me to a place to read).

Second, why does music affect some people so much? Past a philosophy of aesthetics (proportion is related to health and health to survival, so it seems explainable by Darwin's theories), music seems to have little evolutionary value. From my reading in philosophy of music so far today, it seems that music in recent years (enlightenment on) was intentionally developed to express emotions which words and other visual symbols could not, due to a veil of language and bias which separates us from what Kant called "das Ding an sich" and Wallace Stevens called the The -- reality.

But music precedes these theories, and even after these theories, practitioners adapted music to match the human ear, rather than modifying humans to appreciate the music. There are exceptions: it seems it took the human ear time to understand the meaning of compositions like Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" -- people didn't understand innately. In the normal cases, when music was orchestrated to excite pre-existing biases in humans towards certain meanings for certain timbres of sound, where did those interpretations in humans develop?

I wish I could word this more simply but it's very complicated in my head and, of course, language is an ill-fitted tool to expressing deep pathos.