As the world gets bigger (or shrinks, depending on your point of view) and through globalization - more connected - what are the challenges from an ethical perspective? We're thinking about ethics right now, so what principles should be applied to issues like migration (freedom of movement), media, freedom of expression, internet, global corporations, trade, environment, emerging technologies, population control, resources, territorial claims and ownership, different ideologies, values & beliefs, human rights, international conflicts, gender issues, natural disasters, terrorism. There are so many issues that occupy space outside or between nations. It seems we cannot act unilaterally any more. Do all these issues necessitate controls? What are our goals? How can they be decided and/or implemented? Thoughts?
We as humans grow to love and care about people surrounding us. As the world gets bigger people are growing to become more attached and epithetical to different types of people. As the video states “We are soft wired to experience another’s plight as if we are experiencing it ourselves”. We empathize with people because we show solidarity to others, for in the end we are all the same. Consciousness does change in history, for we can extend our empathy to more than just individuals from the same family, culture, or religion. There are indeed issues between countries, but one must take into account that there are issues everywhere between family members, religions, friends and so forth. In the end we are all form the same family!
Yes Fz, people are indeed growing to become more attached and epithetical to different types of people yet when you think about it we are just narrowing down our groups; we went from dividing people from religions (mainly three different ones), to now hundreds of different nations. While nationalism is bringing certain groups of people closer together it is simultaneously bringing those same groups far apart from each other. It is only when assembling the similarities of a group that you are bringing out and emphasizing on the differences of the other groups. The solidarity of some can lead to the ostracism of others. Therefore I believe that instead of narrowing our groups we should broaden them. You are right we are all humans and share an incredible amount of similarities just within ourselves, so we should not let religion, race or color get in our way.
I see what you mean, but does having a very distinct identity or belief system mean we have to reject and refuse everything that is 'other', all that is 'not us'? I think you are right, Saad, that we define ourselves both by what we are and by what we are not - but if we see in others what IS the same as we are (as FZ claims we can) - then we can 'feel' for other human beings however different their beliefs and allegiances. Then "religion, race, color" etc might not "get in the way".
Yeah but still FZ, not everyone feels empathy. Some people are just born evil, look at Hitler, Stalin or even Mussolini. Sure some of us can feel the others plight, but how do we control the others? The people who when know will be left to their own devices will commit horrible crimes. There needs to be a system of balance, law, justice, and above all freedom. Sure, it's difficult to create something that full fill all of the requirements at once, but we as human beings must strive to on day achieve this balance and peace. We need to allow the people who will bring progess to humanity do so, while at the same time keep an eye on those who can't since not everyone can feel empathy.
First, I greatly disagree with FZ and believe that not all people are empathetic. I also disagree with Ghali. These dictators were not born evil, for it is believed that all babies are born with a natural inclination to be good. Inferiorities and weaknesses are the main causes to evil, and this one is developed throughout time. Furthermore, you claim that there needs to be a system of balance; but how will this one be created, when even the greatest leaders in this world disagree about the smallest details. How do we distinguish the people who will bring progress to humanity from the ones who are harming this world? It is impossible to have one set of rules to control everyone, for society is composed of people with contrasting views.
As the world gets bigger, it is inevitable that societies or countries grow apart. I personally don't believe such issues environment or gender issues (to cite a few) necessarily need to be controlled or agreed upon, because at the end of the day, ethics are individual. No matter how hard we try, we can never get a whole country (let alone the entire world) to think in the same way about controversial issues. The reason for this is that we are taught different things by our culture as well as our educators, for instance an Iraqi man would VERY LIKELY not have the same perspective on gender equality as a Moroccan would. For instance, a 46 year old father from Iraq recently killed his daughter because she fell in love with a British soldier. The man was not tried, but was instead congratulated by the local authorities for doing the "right thing". Such acts are clearly ethical in Iraq, but would NEVER EVER be tolerated in more westernized societies. If we're shooting for international agreement, the big question with ethics is, where do we draw the line?
Not sure what the humanist code for global ethics would say about this - but essentially one person's rights end where another one's begin. In other words, no-one has the right to stop someone else living freely unless they are harming someone else in a tangible manner. A man who kills his daughter is denying her personhood - the freedom to choose how to live. He does that because he regards her as his property and the source of his honor and self-respect. I understand this is cultural and he probably had little or no choice to 'opt out' of this system, (a prisoner inside his own head) but I would not have a moment's hesitation in removing his right to do this if I could.
As the world becomes more digitalised, and more of the retards of the world who were previously unheard amongst the masses receive a place to speak from through the internet, people will lose the ability to empathise. Our race is becoming more and more hopeless as I type this, and no matter how optimistic one is, it is impossible to argue against this. I used to think all would turn out well and that all could turn out well just as I get the impression FZ does now. But these days, I am sure things will go the opposite way. As people around the world get into contact with the rest of the world, or , as you have all phrased it, "the world gets bigger", there will definitely by a minority who embrace differences and let their empathy come out through the shell placed around them by society, but the large majority of the worlds population is made up of, for lack of a better word, retards, and this will ultimately screw everyone else over. I am disheartened by the "medievalness" of thinking I see every day, and just as an example, I will leave this video link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY . The Naivety of people is so great, that we're all doomed. Because just as Ghali said, there are those people who do not feel empathy, and they are just too good at gaining control over the idiots in this world. Need I remind you of Rick Perry's infamous add? "You don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there is something wrong with this country when gays can serve openly in the military". Unless we can do something about the idiocy of the world population, and quickly too, we might as well not have empathy.
Just as some extra support for my argument that the human race is screwed, watch this video, an read the comments, you will feign yourself in the dark ages.
I agree with FZ that most of us as humans, are naturally caring of others and empathetic to a certain extent, whether we like to show it or not. Most of us for example would feel guilty after committing a crime or offense that brought harm to another. However I agree with Ghali that clearly there are many cases where people were born with a disability to empathize like tyrannical rulers, and psychopathic murderers. Yet I think David's view, no offense David, is much too cynical, just as FZ's view is perhaps too simple and wishful. Personally, I am between these two extreme views, as I do think that as the world is globalizing, we are expanding our ability to empathize and understand opposing beliefs - I myself, as an international student have personally learnt the significance of cultural exchange and embracing of other cultures. However, another both wonderful and dangerous aspect of the human race is our diversity and individuality, and our ability to form our own opinions and disagree. Not everyone is as accepting as others, and even those who are empathetically aware and like to think of themselves as so, often act differently from what they themselves would recognize as ideal. Yet, I think if we all thought like David and simply gave up, perhaps we are all "doomed" as he says. But I think empathy is something that is innate in most our population and in the end would prevail over those without.
My hopes are pinned on you and everyone like you, Maiya! You ARE the 21st century enlightenment. But M Dujardin is an idealist in disguise perhaps. He despairs when he listens to some of the trash on Youtube, and even more depressing, the rabid comments underneath - precisely because he is not as they are. The jaws of opinionated ignorance are opening wide and threatening to swallow us whole. They scare me too.
In my opinion, society will always encounter certain barriers and ethical challenges that will somewhat hinder the progress of empathy as today’s world becomes increasingly globalized. For example, though humanity has made immense progress in terms of cultural tolerance (and even appreciation) in today’s society, a cultural barrier still stands between different peoples that makes it harder to empathize. This is especially the case with cultures rooted in religion as these types of cultures operate under different moral and ethical codes. Take the disparity between Middle-eastern cultures and Western cultures as an example, both displaying contrasting extremes. Salim mentioned an excellent example of cultural perceptions in terms of the honor killings which enforces my point: on one side, you have the countries who perceive honor-killings favorably while on the other side, we have countries that would revile this practice, perceiving it as a despicable act of cruelty(which I think is absolutely justified... but I’m going off topic). This poses another ethical question: should there be a universal moral code? Should it be enforced? If there is a universal moral code, will it put religious and cultural values at a balance? These are definitely some of the questions worth exploring as globalization spreads its influence and the world experiences gradual homogenization through expansive media and technologies.
I agree with everything you say here, David... However, I think the 'empathy' plan is that if we can 'feel' for others, we would not be barbaric and violent. It is only possible to do terrible things to others if we see them as inhuman, subhuman actually. Thus the key to a more tolerant world is one where we educate for empathy (not sure how you do that though). Anyway, I don't think you have to agree with someone to feel their pain, do you?
From reading everyone else comments, it appears that we have two extremes: FZ, who believes that empathy is all around us and David, who believes that there is no empathy and we are all hopeless. I think my opinion is somewhat in between which is that empathy is something that can be lost or gained. All people do have some sort of empathy in them, but it is the circumstances that they are placed in and information that they receive that causes some people to possibly lose some empathy. The world getting bigger or becoming globalized is just one of the ways through which people can lose empathy. If we take Ghali’s example of Hitler, then I would say he was born with empathy just like everyone else, but it was the way he was raised and some harsh circumstances that he was placed in caused him to lose empathy. In order to live in a just, peaceful, and joyful world we need to help those people who are placed into terrible circumstances, to overcome them and see the light in life. Overall, I believe that empathy is something that we are all born with and will remain with us forever; it is just a matter of who and what is around us.
Hear! Hear! All babies are 'tabla rasa' - clean slates.. We have to watch what gets inscribed on them - especially in those tender, impressionable years of growing. This is where the damage gets done. Pain and ignorance - the twin destroyers.
Having read other people's comments and watched the video “The Empathetic Civilization,” I’m able to understand why there are two extreme views. (That argued by FZ and the other by David) As has been said "we are wired to experience what others experience," which is due to our human nature, however the world has become concerned with aesthetic happiness, and no longer gives any value to the real beauties in life, causing humans to view the world as the "survival of the fittest." Humans are concerned with their material wealth, their power, and gain; which hinders them from being compassionate. It would be hypocritical to argue the opposite. As the world is become more materialistic, humans are in risk of losing their humanity. Maiya brings up the idea that the world is globalizing growingly, and because of such, humans are accepting each others’ differences and are becoming tolerate of gender, racial and color diversity. Nevertheless, to argue that humans’ moral compass and empathy can prevail is naïve and a romantic thought. Another stimulating idea touched on in the documentary is that “to civilize is to empathize.” If humans don’t let their emotions prevail, then the human race will self-destruct. Everyone will become estranged, and there will be no sense of love, respect and care for one another. “To civilize is to empathize” cements the significance of emotions to humanity.
Concerning the question that Ms. Mkinsi raised at the beginning: Do all these issues necessitate controls? What are our goals? How can they be decided and/or implemented? Thoughts? I think that in order for humanity to continue peacefully, these issues have to remain. Let’s take 2 minute and imagine a world without any issue. I am sure it will be disastrous. It is like when we imagine a world without poverty, it just can’t happen, even religions confirmed this decades ago. It is necessary for us to have these issues. Indeed, these issues necessitate have to be controlled by both the government and ordinary people, meaning that discussion must be present. Therefore, Democracy and freedom of speech are in my opinion the most important features that will keep these issues bearable. Our goals is to participate in the discussion about these issues in order to have a whole range of opinions. This way they will not be decided by just the governing class.
As the world gets bigger (or shrinks, depending on your point of view) and through globalization - more connected - what are the challenges from an ethical perspective? We're thinking about ethics right now, so what principles should be applied to issues like migration (freedom of movement), media, freedom of expression, internet, global corporations, trade, environment, emerging technologies, population control, resources, territorial claims and ownership, different ideologies, values & beliefs, human rights, international conflicts, gender issues, natural disasters, terrorism. There are so many issues that occupy space outside or between nations. It seems we cannot act unilaterally any more. Do all these issues necessitate controls? What are our goals? How can they be decided and/or implemented? Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe as humans grow to love and care about people surrounding us. As the world gets bigger people are growing to become more attached and epithetical to different types of people. As the video states “We are soft wired to experience another’s plight as if we are experiencing it ourselves”. We empathize with people because we show solidarity to others, for in the end we are all the same. Consciousness does change in history, for we can extend our empathy to more than just individuals from the same family, culture, or religion. There are indeed issues between countries, but one must take into account that there are issues everywhere between family members, religions, friends and so forth. In the end we are all form the same family!
ReplyDeleteYes Fz, people are indeed growing to become more attached and epithetical to different types of people yet when you think about it we are just narrowing down our groups; we went from dividing people from religions (mainly three different ones), to now hundreds of different nations. While nationalism is bringing certain groups of people closer together it is simultaneously bringing those same groups far apart from each other. It is only when assembling the similarities of a group that you are bringing out and emphasizing on the differences of the other groups. The solidarity of some can lead to the ostracism of others. Therefore I believe that instead of narrowing our groups we should broaden them. You are right we are all humans and share an incredible amount of similarities just within ourselves, so we should not let religion, race or color get in our way.
DeleteI see what you mean, but does having a very distinct identity or belief system mean we have to reject and refuse everything that is 'other', all that is 'not us'? I think you are right, Saad, that we define ourselves both by what we are and by what we are not - but if we see in others what IS the same as we are (as FZ claims we can) - then we can 'feel' for other human beings however different their beliefs and allegiances. Then "religion, race, color" etc might not "get in the way".
DeleteYeah but still FZ, not everyone feels empathy. Some people are just born evil, look at Hitler, Stalin or even Mussolini. Sure some of us can feel the others plight, but how do we control the others? The people who when know will be left to their own devices will commit horrible crimes. There needs to be a system of balance, law, justice, and above all freedom. Sure, it's difficult to create something that full fill all of the requirements at once, but we as human beings must strive to on day achieve this balance and peace. We need to allow the people who will bring progess to humanity do so, while at the same time keep an eye on those who can't since not everyone can feel empathy.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I greatly disagree with FZ and believe that not all people are empathetic. I also disagree with Ghali. These dictators were not born evil, for it is believed that all babies are born with a natural inclination to be good. Inferiorities and weaknesses are the main causes to evil, and this one is developed throughout time. Furthermore, you claim that there needs to be a system of balance; but how will this one be created, when even the greatest leaders in this world disagree about the smallest details. How do we distinguish the people who will bring progress to humanity from the ones who are harming this world? It is impossible to have one set of rules to control everyone, for society is composed of people with contrasting views.
DeleteAs the world gets bigger, it is inevitable that societies or countries grow apart. I personally don't believe such issues environment or gender issues (to cite a few) necessarily need to be controlled or agreed upon, because at the end of the day, ethics are individual. No matter how hard we try, we can never get a whole country (let alone the entire world) to think in the same way about controversial issues. The reason for this is that we are taught different things by our culture as well as our educators, for instance an Iraqi man would VERY LIKELY not have the same perspective on gender equality as a Moroccan would. For instance, a 46 year old father from Iraq recently killed his daughter because she fell in love with a British soldier. The man was not tried, but was instead congratulated by the local authorities for doing the "right thing". Such acts are clearly ethical in Iraq, but would NEVER EVER be tolerated in more westernized societies. If we're shooting for international agreement, the big question with ethics is, where do we draw the line?
ReplyDeleteNot sure what the humanist code for global ethics would say about this - but essentially one person's rights end where another one's begin. In other words, no-one has the right to stop someone else living freely unless they are harming someone else in a tangible manner. A man who kills his daughter is denying her personhood - the freedom to choose how to live. He does that because he regards her as his property and the source of his honor and self-respect. I understand this is cultural and he probably had little or no choice to 'opt out' of this system, (a prisoner inside his own head) but I would not have a moment's hesitation in removing his right to do this if I could.
DeleteAs the world becomes more digitalised, and more of the retards of the world who were previously unheard amongst the masses receive a place to speak from through the internet, people will lose the ability to empathise. Our race is becoming more and more hopeless as I type this, and no matter how optimistic one is, it is impossible to argue against this. I used to think all would turn out well and that all could turn out well just as I get the impression FZ does now. But these days, I am sure things will go the opposite way. As people around the world get into contact with the rest of the world, or , as you have all phrased it, "the world gets bigger", there will definitely by a minority who embrace differences and let their empathy come out through the shell placed around them by society, but the large majority of the worlds population is made up of, for lack of a better word, retards, and this will ultimately screw everyone else over. I am disheartened by the "medievalness" of thinking I see every day, and just as an example, I will leave this video link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY . The Naivety of people is so great, that we're all doomed. Because just as Ghali said, there are those people who do not feel empathy, and they are just too good at gaining control over the idiots in this world. Need I remind you of Rick Perry's infamous add? "You don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there is something wrong with this country when gays can serve openly in the military". Unless we can do something about the idiocy of the world population, and quickly too, we might as well not have empathy.
ReplyDeleteJust as some extra support for my argument that the human race is screwed, watch this video, an read the comments, you will feign yourself in the dark ages.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzzDrOR30U8&feature=related
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with FZ that most of us as humans, are naturally caring of others and empathetic to a certain extent, whether we like to show it or not. Most of us for example would feel guilty after committing a crime or offense that brought harm to another. However I agree with Ghali that clearly there are many cases where people were born with a disability to empathize like tyrannical rulers, and psychopathic murderers. Yet I think David's view, no offense David, is much too cynical, just as FZ's view is perhaps too simple and wishful. Personally, I am between these two extreme views, as I do think that as the world is globalizing, we are expanding our ability to empathize and understand opposing beliefs - I myself, as an international student have personally learnt the significance of cultural exchange and embracing of other cultures. However, another both wonderful and dangerous aspect of the human race is our diversity and individuality, and our ability to form our own opinions and disagree. Not everyone is as accepting as others, and even those who are empathetically aware and like to think of themselves as so, often act differently from what they themselves would recognize as ideal. Yet, I think if we all thought like David and simply gave up, perhaps we are all "doomed" as he says. But I think empathy is something that is innate in most our population and in the end would prevail over those without.
ReplyDeleteMy hopes are pinned on you and everyone like you, Maiya! You ARE the 21st century enlightenment. But M Dujardin is an idealist in disguise perhaps. He despairs when he listens to some of the trash on Youtube, and even more depressing, the rabid comments underneath - precisely because he is not as they are. The jaws of opinionated ignorance are opening wide and threatening to swallow us whole. They scare me too.
DeleteIn my opinion, society will always encounter certain barriers and ethical challenges that will somewhat hinder the progress of empathy as today’s world becomes increasingly globalized. For example, though humanity has made immense progress in terms of cultural tolerance (and even appreciation) in today’s society, a cultural barrier still stands between different peoples that makes it harder to empathize. This is especially the case with cultures rooted in religion as these types of cultures operate under different moral and ethical codes. Take the disparity between Middle-eastern cultures and Western cultures as an example, both displaying contrasting extremes. Salim mentioned an excellent example of cultural perceptions in terms of the honor killings which enforces my point: on one side, you have the countries who perceive honor-killings favorably while on the other side, we have countries that would revile this practice, perceiving it as a despicable act of cruelty(which I think is absolutely justified... but I’m going off topic). This poses another ethical question: should there be a universal moral code? Should it be enforced? If there is a universal moral code, will it put religious and cultural values at a balance? These are definitely some of the questions worth exploring as globalization spreads its influence and the world experiences gradual homogenization through expansive media and technologies.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you say here, David... However, I think the 'empathy' plan is that if we can 'feel' for others, we would not be barbaric and violent. It is only possible to do terrible things to others if we see them as inhuman, subhuman actually. Thus the key to a more tolerant world is one where we educate for empathy (not sure how you do that though). Anyway, I don't think you have to agree with someone to feel their pain, do you?
DeleteFrom reading everyone else comments, it appears that we have two extremes: FZ, who believes that empathy is all around us and David, who believes that there is no empathy and we are all hopeless. I think my opinion is somewhat in between which is that empathy is something that can be lost or gained. All people do have some sort of empathy in them, but it is the circumstances that they are placed in and information that they receive that causes some people to possibly lose some empathy. The world getting bigger or becoming globalized is just one of the ways through which people can lose empathy. If we take Ghali’s example of Hitler, then I would say he was born with empathy just like everyone else, but it was the way he was raised and some harsh circumstances that he was placed in caused him to lose empathy. In order to live in a just, peaceful, and joyful world we need to help those people who are placed into terrible circumstances, to overcome them and see the light in life. Overall, I believe that empathy is something that we are all born with and will remain with us forever; it is just a matter of who and what is around us.
ReplyDeleteHear! Hear! All babies are 'tabla rasa' - clean slates.. We have to watch what gets inscribed on them - especially in those tender, impressionable years of growing. This is where the damage gets done. Pain and ignorance - the twin destroyers.
ReplyDeleteHaving read other people's comments and watched the video “The Empathetic Civilization,” I’m able to understand why there are two extreme views. (That argued by FZ and the other by David) As has been said "we are wired to experience what others experience," which is due to our human nature, however the world has become concerned with aesthetic happiness, and no longer gives any value to the real beauties in life, causing humans to view the world as the "survival of the fittest." Humans are concerned with their material wealth, their power, and gain; which hinders them from being compassionate. It would be hypocritical to argue the opposite. As the world is become more materialistic, humans are in risk of losing their humanity. Maiya brings up the idea that the world is globalizing growingly, and because of such, humans are accepting each others’ differences and are becoming tolerate of gender, racial and color diversity. Nevertheless, to argue that humans’ moral compass and empathy can prevail is naïve and a romantic thought.
ReplyDeleteAnother stimulating idea touched on in the documentary is that “to civilize is to empathize.” If humans don’t let their emotions prevail, then the human race will self-destruct. Everyone will become estranged, and there will be no sense of love, respect and care for one another. “To civilize is to empathize” cements the significance of emotions to humanity.
Concerning the question that Ms. Mkinsi raised at the beginning: Do all these issues necessitate controls? What are our goals? How can they be decided and/or implemented? Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI think that in order for humanity to continue peacefully, these issues have to remain. Let’s take 2 minute and imagine a world without any issue. I am sure it will be disastrous. It is like when we imagine a world without poverty, it just can’t happen, even religions confirmed this decades ago. It is necessary for us to have these issues. Indeed, these issues necessitate have to be controlled by both the government and ordinary people, meaning that discussion must be present. Therefore, Democracy and freedom of speech are in my opinion the most important features that will keep these issues bearable. Our goals is to participate in the discussion about these issues in order to have a whole range of opinions. This way they will not be decided by just the governing class.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete