Pop Altruism

I hesitate to make this connection, but it's just too fitting. Has anyone seen the episode of Friends where Phoebe is determined to find a selfless good deed? Joey says there is no such thing as a selfless good deed, because anytime someone does a good deed, they feel good, so in a way the deed is selfish. Phoebe refuses to believe it, so she sets out to find a selfless good deed. First she rakes a neighbor's leaves, but he catches her and gives her cider and cookies (or somesuch). Then she lets a bee sting her (so he can look tough for his bee friends), but then she finds out he probably died after stinging her. Finally, she thinks she finds one: she donates money to PBS, to help children. She hates PBS and feels terrible about giving them money. But she is helping, so she finally does a selfless good deed. (Unfortunately, her pledge helps Joey appear on television, so in the end she does feel good!) I just thought this was a funny example of the altruism dilemma. As for my take on it, I think there is such thing as true altruism ("selfless good deeds"). I think it's rare, and honorable, but I also agree with those who have already said that it's ok to get some satisfaction out of doing good things for others. Either way, someone else benefits, so one's own feelings shouldn't really matter.

Altruism: WhatEVER!

Firstly, I agree with Molly completely: of course one cannot order someone else to be an organ donor, when they themselves are not, and this same principle applies to soooo many other things, too...hypocriticism just is not right.
Secondly, I would just like to mention the thing I found most interesting in Mrs. Pescovitz's speech: that in a study, 24/24 babies wanted to help the adult when he dropped something (seemingly by ACCIDENT), but not a single one of those babies tried to help when the same person threw the object, as if on purpose. This stat pretty much proved to me that inherently, human beings want to help others. And whether this instinct stems from a very early need for praise and self-pride, or not, it DOES NOT MATTER! What matters is that is instinct for a baby/human to help. Because in the end your own satisfaction with yourself for doing good does not hurt ANYBODY, while your good deed helped somebody else and yourself...I think it might just be ok to feel happy when you do something good!
This statistic also gave me hope to believe that any human, whether possessing knowledge of the different types of ethics or not, can make the "right" decision when faced with such simple challenges as to hold the door for the little old lady or not. Altruism need not be on their minds!
3rd: I LOVED Sarah's topic for the areopagum (oooh, i hope that's right!) I think that art can speak volumes about history, and more importantly, reveal how real people felt about the things going on around them. We just finished up a unit in spanish on analyzing Spanish art, and though seemingly abstract and vague, each painting had a precise and exact meaning, each showing how the painter felt about the times he was living in. In particular, Francisco Goya painted gorgeous colorful paintings of the life of the rich Spaniards, and all the characters were always happy with rosy cheeks; they were obviously enjoying eachother's company and the place and times in which they lived. But in actuality, Goya was satirizing the ignorance of these people, and the paintings revealed the huge separation of the rich Spaniards from reality.

Organ Donor Question.

One more thing-I don't have a perfect answer to the organ donor question, as Dr. Pescovitz also said.  I don't have enough information and stats on organ donors and organ recipients to support any new rule concerning the subject.

But my question is: If someone isn't willing to donate their organs, what right do they have to demand someone else's?

Altruism?

I loved the lecture because I learned something new about ALTRUISM, which I've considered  an unworthy, self-sacrificial, pitiful ethical theory.  But I liked how she said that in her opinion, we must find the balance between altruism and egoism.  We should WANT to help others, and we do, by our human nature.  And we CAN be helping ourselves as well while we "commit" altruistic acts; the fact that we can CHOOSE to be altruistic or not is proof of the beauty of selflessness.  But I really liked the question my dad asked (hahah) at the end-"Why is it that I feel so good when I write a check to charity out of my own accord, but when I write a check for social services to the government, all I feel is resentment-no gratification whatsoever?" Altruists would, I guess, argue that that's okay because it is a selfless act so we shouldn't feel any gratification anyway.  But that's the altruism I hate.  Is our government forcing people to be altruistic?  There IS a duty of the government to its people, but is the welfare system MORE effective than allowing more job opportunities and relying on the goodness of human nature?  We've seemed to lose faith in it.  Again, I'm trying to relate politics to ethics, not just discuss my political views.  My question is: does altruism really exist in the way it is defined?  I would say that altruism is absolutely not "all true."  Does ANYONE do a charitable/selfless act without having at least some gratification or good feelings within themselves? I don't think so.   And we should never be ashamed for it.

Episteme Lectures Site

Two things: One, let's hear your thoughts about what Dr. Pescovitz had to say. You took notes, you asked good questions...let's take this to the next level.

Two, check out the new home for The Episteme Lectures on the web. We have a new look at www.epistemelecture.org. We don't have all the archived pictures from past lectures up yet, but that will happen soon.

Please share the lectures with anyone who would be interested in donating to support them. Donations are tax deductible, and as Dr. Pescovitz said, there is nothing wrong with doing good and doing well at the same time!

Human vs. Animal Survival

Warning: long post!
Anyway, the subject that I wanted to post about is this. I am currently watching a show on the Discovery Channel called Human Body: Pushing the Limits and it has been making me think about the discussion we had in class about the difference between humans and animals. The show has already given several examples of people who were able to call out extraordinary strength from their bodies while in the midst of life-threatening situations. This has made me realize that there is a fundamental difference between humans and animals: when both are faced with life-or-death situations, in general humans are more driven and compelled to stay alive than most animals are. For example, the show gave an example of a firefighter who was able to accelerate faster than a racehorse to escape a fire-cloud (where the air is literally burning; fire-clouds precede the actual flames of a forest fire). This man's brain sent messages to his muscles, blood vessels, and organs that forced them to go their extremes in order to save the man's overall life. In contrast, in the case of a burning horse barn, even after you rescue all of the horses from the barn, if you do not contain them then they will simply run back into the flames. This is because they understand their stalls to be places of relaxation and safety and are not able to process the fact that they could be killed if they do not stay away from the fire. Animals have their own responses to life or death situations, of course, but I do not believe that they are as pronounced or effective as humans' responses. The fight or flight instinct is strong in all animals; they will run whenever possible but in the event that there is nowhere to run, they will fight. Once injured, however, they are not able to sustain themselves to the level that humans can. They simply seem to give up. I had a cat who followed this example almost exactly. My beloved cat Maxwell passed away in the fall of my freshman year after nearly a week of being ravaged by a debilitating illness: his body was literally shutting down from the back feet upwards. It began as what seemed like a sprained ankle-decreased flexibility in the rear left leg-and progressed to complete paralysis of both rear legs and the loss of bladder control. Even though it would take around four days for him to die, even after the first day I noticed a pronounced lethargy and bad attitude in him and he stopped eating early on the fourth day. Near the middle of the fourth day he began crawling into tight spaces or dark corners, an attitude that I immediately recognized to mean that he had finally given up hope and was essentially looking for a place to die. I had to have him euthanized to spare him the pain of a slow death of starvation. I believe that if I had not been there to encourage him and tell him that he would be all right he would have given up sooner. My point with this anecdote is that he no longer had the will to live and even that though his body could have kept on functioning, his brain made the decision to allow his body to die. Although this is the case with some people, particularly elderly individuals who no longer wish to fight to survive everyday, the majority of humans push to keep themselves alive. Need proof? Cancer victims. If a cancer patient decides to end treatment and allow him or herself to die, then the hospital cannot deny him or her. We do not see this very often, however, because humans have an ingrained desire to survive that is, quite possibly, stronger than that which is ingrained into animals' minds. Cancer patients have hope that they will be treated. They look towards the future whereas animals can only look into the present. In addition to the capability to hope, I believe the single most important factor that makes humans try so hard to stay alive is the possibility that humans may have more to give to this earth than animals ever could. Animals concern themselves with themselves and their young offspring while humans with so much else. Just look around for proof.
If anyone has taken the time to read this I would like to thank you. I know that it was long, but I really did have a lot to say!
The funny thing: I didn't even talk about everything that I wanted to.

objectivism in "hard" and "soft" sciences

Going back to the differences between "hard sciences" and "soft sciences" and why people always use stats (pulled from the hard sciences) to back up an opinion/viewpoint: 

Everyone considers the hard sciences objective.  This is hard to disagree with--facts are facts, proved equations are proved equations, observations and tendencies are observations and tendencies.  People seem to push the soft sciences (especially political science, gov, econ, and ethics) aside because they automatically assume they are subjective, and therefore, weak.  It's as if if some people disagree, then no one is correct and the science must not be substantial or valuable.  Sorry relativists, but people can be wrong...(not to say I don't respect their opinions!!!) What if people considered ethics or government theory objective?  They definitely wouldn't be dubbed "soft sciences" anymore.

Useless studies

I just read this and was reminded of our discussion of studies that do nothing but tell us things we already know. I thought I should share because it made me laugh:

"As if anyone needed to tell us this, MTV published an article earlier today about research concluding that the Harry Potter series can in fact be addicting. The story notes:In a just-finished study that's being submitted to the Journal of General Psychology, psych professor Dr. Jeffrey Rudski and two of his undergrad students at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pennsylvania, report that they found characteristics of addiction in at least 10 percent of the 4,000 Potter fans they polled online."

Like we couldn't see the addiction in the hundreds of kids (quite possibly including myself) that showed up at each bookstore at midnight dressed in wizarding robes every night a new book came out. ;]