Blind Faith and Skepticism
People keep throwing numbers all the time to validate
their personal opinions on things. I find numbers
persuasive, but they are not enough to propel me to
take action.
On second thoughts.. instances come to mind when numbers affected me emotionally but I was paralyzed by the magnitude of the problem and didn’t know how to take action.
I remember the war in Darfur because it summons up dreadful images of violent deaths to about 500,000 people. That is almost the population of the city I am currently living in. AIDS currently affects over 35 million people in the world. There are about 40,000 reported cases of Swine flu in the world.
Perhaps, it is unfair to make a point about the relevance of numbers when we speak of something sensational like genocide or diseases. Their relevance mostly comes from numbers!
I have been reading amusing and distressing news stories related to endangered species in ecoworldly. Read this:
There are many more. If you have read this far, I highly recommend subscribing to ecoworldly. :) They have much more than news about endangered species!
As I read this kind of news every morning and become affected by it, I realize it may be the effusive way in which the numbers are relayed in these articles that makes me feel remorseful. Talk to me about something with a lot of interest, wax lyrically, even lose your sense of proportion, and I will listen to you. If you are convincing enough, I will act with you and become a champion of your cause.
That being said, if there is only one of a species left in the world, or thousands of people slaughtered in a distant country, what can I do to help! How about giving me action steps to take aside from affecting me emotionally with effusion!
I have been thinking about our sense of morality and where it comes from. It can’t all be a result of our individual conscience. It can’t also be prescriptive or based on long-standing custom through an institution like religion or the government. It has to come from a combination of blind-faith and skepticism, only, how they are combined varies from person to person. Which is why, some kinds of morality have changed over time, like our views on marriage or the way women are treated. And some have remained the same, like our views on murder and burglary.
Needless to say, there are those for who the question of morality is in a state of uncertainty, like war or abortion or capital punishment. But, we would much rather leave these decisions to the cat that is willing to bell itself!
No matter where our sense of morality comes from, it is certain to some degree at least that it has little to do with numbers. At least, our sense of right and wrong does not come from how many people agree or disagree with a value. Around the globe, over half a million people kill unlawfully every year. Does the vast number of people who take to murdering makes it morally acceptable? What we sometimes deem as deviant behavior are acts of millions of people! If our moral judgment tells us homicide is immoral, it is not because of how few people take to killing or how many people are killed. It has to do with how we define ability to empathize in another and how our conscience guides our sense of rightness and wrongness.
I am reminded of my ethics class in grad school in which I learnt of the many ways of looking at morality and ethics. It’s bewildering how much thought has gone into this area of study. As you learn about moral absolutism, relativism, realism, anti-realism and so on… where each kind is as convincing as the other, you realize that it is impossible to be right about anything, including what we now perceive as natural instinctive states of mind like empathy and compassion!
Added to that, as I read about the scientific studies on behavioral neuroscience, like how mirror neurons affect our capability to share our feelings and understand another's feelings, it makes me want to question why I feel morally answerable.
Could it be that we use these devices such as numbers and effusive expression to force a false sense of morality?
On second thoughts.. instances come to mind when numbers affected me emotionally but I was paralyzed by the magnitude of the problem and didn’t know how to take action.
I remember the war in Darfur because it summons up dreadful images of violent deaths to about 500,000 people. That is almost the population of the city I am currently living in. AIDS currently affects over 35 million people in the world. There are about 40,000 reported cases of Swine flu in the world.
Perhaps, it is unfair to make a point about the relevance of numbers when we speak of something sensational like genocide or diseases. Their relevance mostly comes from numbers!
I have been reading amusing and distressing news stories related to endangered species in ecoworldly. Read this:
A species of bird so rare it was thought perhaps to be extinct was captured on video and still images in the Phillipines province of Nueva Vizcaya… right before it was cooked and eaten. Read more
Scientists succeeded for the first time in achieving the holy grail of conservation: bringing to life an extinct animal through cloning. For seven minutes. Read more
Last year one of the most critically endangered birds in the world, the Northern Bald Ibis, nested in Spain for the 1st time in 500 years. Terrific news has now arrived that a pair is nesting again in the same location this year. Read more
According to a new study, climate change could drastically alter 88% of the waters where dolphins, whales and porpoises are found. While some species may stand to benefit from the changes, the research concluded that one fifth of cetacean species could be lost forever. Read more
There are many more. If you have read this far, I highly recommend subscribing to ecoworldly. :) They have much more than news about endangered species!
As I read this kind of news every morning and become affected by it, I realize it may be the effusive way in which the numbers are relayed in these articles that makes me feel remorseful. Talk to me about something with a lot of interest, wax lyrically, even lose your sense of proportion, and I will listen to you. If you are convincing enough, I will act with you and become a champion of your cause.
That being said, if there is only one of a species left in the world, or thousands of people slaughtered in a distant country, what can I do to help! How about giving me action steps to take aside from affecting me emotionally with effusion!
I have been thinking about our sense of morality and where it comes from. It can’t all be a result of our individual conscience. It can’t also be prescriptive or based on long-standing custom through an institution like religion or the government. It has to come from a combination of blind-faith and skepticism, only, how they are combined varies from person to person. Which is why, some kinds of morality have changed over time, like our views on marriage or the way women are treated. And some have remained the same, like our views on murder and burglary.
Needless to say, there are those for who the question of morality is in a state of uncertainty, like war or abortion or capital punishment. But, we would much rather leave these decisions to the cat that is willing to bell itself!
No matter where our sense of morality comes from, it is certain to some degree at least that it has little to do with numbers. At least, our sense of right and wrong does not come from how many people agree or disagree with a value. Around the globe, over half a million people kill unlawfully every year. Does the vast number of people who take to murdering makes it morally acceptable? What we sometimes deem as deviant behavior are acts of millions of people! If our moral judgment tells us homicide is immoral, it is not because of how few people take to killing or how many people are killed. It has to do with how we define ability to empathize in another and how our conscience guides our sense of rightness and wrongness.
I am reminded of my ethics class in grad school in which I learnt of the many ways of looking at morality and ethics. It’s bewildering how much thought has gone into this area of study. As you learn about moral absolutism, relativism, realism, anti-realism and so on… where each kind is as convincing as the other, you realize that it is impossible to be right about anything, including what we now perceive as natural instinctive states of mind like empathy and compassion!
Added to that, as I read about the scientific studies on behavioral neuroscience, like how mirror neurons affect our capability to share our feelings and understand another's feelings, it makes me want to question why I feel morally answerable.
Could it be that we use these devices such as numbers and effusive expression to force a false sense of morality?
