The Problem of Charity for the non-Theist (Bill Gates founder of Microsoft)

[tonyrey]

This depends on what you mean by “rational foundation.” If you mean that the foundation can’t be understood and explained, then I think you’re incorrect. I’ve explained it in this thread. If you mean that empathy/compassion/morality is not rational, then I think I’d agree with you. It also depends on what you mean by “believe in the principle…” If you’re simply referring to the way we’ve rationally described how humans are, I’d agree with you, in general. If you’re referring to how humans *are *instead of the rational description of it, I’d disagree with you–it’s not that people **believe **in it, but that it is.

I believe morality is rational but in a Godless universe there is no reason why it should be rational because we couldn’t be rational in a Godless universe! We would only imagine that we are.

For example, we believe that we need oxygen to survive, and that we breathe to bring in that oxygen. On the other hand, humans are living breathing animals, and no belief is necessary for that to be the case–one needn’t have a rational foundation for the fact that they are living breathing animals.

That is a fact about physical existence but morality is not a physical fact.

 

[Jocko_VT]

I believe morality is rational but in a Godless universe there is no reason why it should be rational because we couldn’t be rational in a Godless universe! We would only imagine that we are.

Then we’re not rational, and we only imagine that we are. I don’t think this way, but were it the case, it is not a problem for me.

That is a fact about physical existence but morality is not a physical fact.

I think it is, of course. But I’ve already made my argument about that.

 

[tdgesq]

I’ve already answered every question you ask here and in the previous post.

Actually, I don’t believe I asked any questions. I did provide arguments for why your theory is flawed, including arguments from other evolutionary biologists.

I’ve also thoroughly answered the OP.

From my standpoint, it isn’t important whether you or I proclaim that the OP has been answered or not. What matters to me is what other posters viewing your arguments think. I am willing to leave things where they stand now.

What I’ve presented is a viable argument based on evolutionary theory and the works of Levinas, Bauman, Beck, and others (sociologists/philosophers).

If you would, what works written by these authors did you find influential? I did some checking around on them and could only find limited information. If you could suggest the work that was most influential to you I will try to get a copy and read it.

This has been an excellent thread, though! Thank you for the reasoned debate. I appreciate your efforts and those of others in here.

Thank you. You are welcome back anytime.

 

[Jocko_VT]

If you would, what works written by these authors did you find influential? I did some checking around on them and could only find limited information. If you could suggest the work that was most influential to you I will try to get a copy and read it.

Bauman=Postmodern Ethics; Modernity and the Holocaust; and several of his books titled Liquid X (e.g., Liquid Modernity; Liquid Love; Liquid Times; etc.). Mostly the first two, though. He also has several good articles. If you like, I could look up some bibliogrpahic info for you on those.

Ulrich Beck=Risk Society; Individualization; World Risk Society

Arne Vetlesen=Evil and Human Agency; Perception, Empathy and Judgement

Information on Zygmunt Bauman and Ulrich Beck should be all too easy to find. I don’t know how well Vetlesen is known. I guess he’s one of Habermas’ students, but my interest in him comes from his dialogue with Bauman.

These are the key books. There’s also articles by Samual Scheffler, Iris Marion Young, and others.

By the way, I wasn’t saying I had “won” or anything. My point was simply that I’d answered the OP. There’s nothing more I can say to further my argument. You obviously don’t agree, but every argument you made in the aforementioned post had already been addressed by me in previous posts. Thus, at this point, I don’t think either of us is going to say anything more that is useful to the other–you or I. So I hope you didn’t take that the wrong way.

I’m sure at some point, if I stick around, we’ll have a chance to go over all this again.

Cheers

 

[Jocko_VT]

If you would, what works written by these authors did you find influential? I did some checking around on them and could only find limited information. If you could suggest the work that was most influential to you I will try to get a copy and read it.

By the way, above I described these people as “sociologists/philosophers.” I should have said “sociologists/social theorists.” They are philosophers (particularly Levinas and Bauman), but social theorist is more accurate, in my opinion.

 

[tonyrey]

*I believe morality is rational but in a Godless universe there is no reason why it should be rational because we couldn’t be rational in a Godless universe! We would only imagine that we are. *

It wouldn’t be a problem for anyone because we wouldn’t be able to think straight!

That is a fact about physical existence but morality is not a physical fact.

I think it is, of course. But I’ve already made my argument about that.

By “physical fact” I meant " a fact about physical reality. Facts in themselves are not physical but intangible and beyond the scope of brain activity. They can be understood and related to other facts only by an intangible mind.

 

[Jocko_VT]

It wouldn’t be a problem for anyone because we wouldn’t be able to think straight!

Ha! Just how straight humans think is debatable anyway, isn’t it?

Nonetheless, I don’t think we need to think straight to be moral, just as we don’t need to think straight to breath. It’s just what we do, unless something obstructs us. I don’t need a rational foundation for being moral (including “believing in” a “principle of fraternity”) anymore than I need a rational foundation to breath (that was my point before). I think morality is just as much a physical fact as the need to breath.

In fact, *thinking *about morality may be part of the problem today. We moderns worship our own capacity to understand nature–we believe we can break every aspect of life down into its constituent parts to understand them, and then reconstruct them better than they were. To put it in religious terms, we think we can remake creation in man’s image and do a better job than was originally done (This is part of the point I see in Nietzsche’s God is Dead, Weber’s *Disenchantment *and Marx’s Alienation, as well as Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society–and no, I’m not looking for a debate on 19th century social theory!!!). Morality has not been spared this treatment.

I understand that you disagree (concerning morality as a physical fact). I take the OP to be getting at precisely this disagreement.

 

[tonyrey]

Ha! Just how straight humans think is debatable anyway, isn’t it?

If we never think straight there’s no point in deluding ourselves. But… if we can delude ourselves the knowledge that we are deluding ourselves is likely to be a delusion.

Nonetheless, I don’t think we need to think straight to be moral, just as we don’t need to think straight to breathe. It’s just what we do, unless something obstructs us. I don’t need a rational foundation for being moral (including “believing in” a “principle of fraternity”) anymore than I need a rational foundation to breathe (that was my point before). I think morality is just as much a physical fact as the need to breathe.

It sounds as if you think conscience is an inherited function like universal grammar. But you need to clarify whether you believe good and evil are objective facts or concepts which exist only in the mind.

In fact, *thinking *about morality may be part of the problem today. We moderns worship our own capacity to understand nature–we believe we can break every aspect of life down into its constituent parts to understand them, and then reconstruct them better than they were. To put it in religious terms, we think we can remake creation in man’s image and do a better job than was originally done (This is part of the point I see in Nietzsche’s God is Dead, Weber’s *Disenchantment *and Marx’s Alienation, as well as Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society–and no, I’m not looking for a debate on 19th century social theory!!!). Morality has not been spared this treatment.

I understand that you disagree (concerning morality as a physical fact). I take the OP to be getting at precisely this disagreement.

I regard morality as a set of psychological truths which we ignore at our peril. If our inner world revolves around ourselves we are doomed to dissatisfaction and disaster because self-love is an addiction. Our only hope is to be liberated by love for others.

 

[Jocko_VT]

It sounds as if you think conscience is an inherited function like universal grammar.

Maybe. I’ll have to think about that comparison–I don’t know the ins and outs of the universal grammar idea, only a vague idea of it. But, I do think conscience and empathy and compassion are inherent parts of being human–inseparable from being human–and that they are a consequence of evolution, and are thus inherited.

But you need to clarify whether you believe good and evil are objective facts or concepts which exist only in the mind.

Obviously, this depends on how one defines good and evil. If we can set that problem aside for the moment and only come to it if we feel it’s necessary, that’s fine with me.

So, I don’t think they’re objective facts that exist independent of human beings, no. I think the *meanings *of things to people are imbued on those things by people. Evil and good are meanings. At the same time, within humanity, there seem to be (and I certainly believe there are) certain common standards, however different they look across cultures due to differences in social structures. If that counts as “objective,” so be it. Without humans, though, I see no reason why they would exist.

Nonetheless, were I to come upon an alien civilization with life at least as “intelligent” as humans, I’d be completely unsurprised if they thought killing, as a general rule, was a bad thing to do.

I regard morality as a set of psychological truths which we ignore at our peril. If our inner world revolves around ourselves we are doomed to dissatisfaction and disaster because self-love is an addiction. Our only hope is to be liberated by love for others.

I’m completely happy to accept that. I think love for others comes naturally. I think self-love is a consequence of socialization.

 

[tonyrey]

It sounds as if you think conscience is an inherited function like universal grammar.

Then why do many lack empathy and compassion?

But you need to clarify whether you believe good and evil are objective facts or concepts which exist only in the mind.

Obviously, this depends on how one defines good and evil. If we can set that problem aside for the moment and only come to it if we feel it’s necessary, that’s fine with me.

So, I don’t think they’re objective facts that exist independent of human beings, no. I think the *meanings *of things to people are imbued on those things by people. Evil and good are meanings. At the same time, within humanity, there seem to be (and I certainly believe there are) certain common standards, however different they look across cultures due to differences in social structures. If that counts as “objective,” so be it. Without humans, though, I see no reason why they would exist.

Do you think animal suffering isn’t evil?

Nonetheless, were I to come upon an alien civilization with life at least as “intelligent” as humans, I’d be completely unsurprised if they thought killing, as a general rule, was a bad thing to do.

Doesn’t that suggest life is intrinsically valuable regardless of what people think?

*I regard morality as a set of psychological truths which we ignore at our peril. If our inner world revolves around ourselves we are doomed to dissatisfaction and disaster because self-love is an addiction. Our only hope is to be liberated by love for others.*

I’m completely happy to accept that. I think love for others comes naturally.

The immense amount of needless suffering and injustice in the world suggests otherwise…

I think self-love is a consequence of socialization.

Entirely? Is there no element of choice?

 

[Jocko_VT]

Then why do many lack empathy and compassion?

I don’t believe they do. I think their empathy and compassion is undermined by social structures. Excepting damaged people, my guess is most of the people you think lack empathy and compassion still display empathy and compassion toward someone or something.

Do you think animal suffering isn’t evil?

It’s an interesting problem for me. I don’t think when the lion eats the gazelle it is evil. That’s just a lion being a lion. But I’m dumbfounded by the suffering that must occur for the gazelle. Note that in this, I, a human, am empathizing with a gazelle–as though the gazelle were human!!! Bizarre. Still, assuming the gazelle suffers the same way, it’s hard for me to think of that as anything but evil. But, I don’t know. Also, were it an amoeba being eaten, I wouldn’t think twice about it. Is it evil? Or is my empathy going haywire? An evolutionary mistake, as another in this thread phrased it.

On the other hand, we know of the horrific things humans do to non-human animals (and humans, too, but setting that aside). That, to me, is evil, if for no other reason than that it’s unnecessary. Does that evil exist aside from the existence of humans? I don’t know.

Doesn’t that suggest life is intrinsically valuable regardless of what people think?

It suggests to me that life is intrinsically valuable *because *people think it. But, yes, I suspect that to life forms that reflect on themselves and recognize their own mortality, life would appear intrinsically valuable.

       The immense amount of needless suffering and injustice in the world suggests otherwise...

As civilization and, thus, socialization reaches its highest levels, needless suffering and injustice in the world reaches its highest levels.

Entirely? Is there no element of choice?

Choice is shaped by social structure, though. I don’t think every choice exists in every social structure. So, yes, there is an element of choice, but it’s secondary to the real problem, which is the social structure itself. For example, I don’t believe anyone would opt to be obese. Who would want the increased morbidity associated with obesity or the stigma associated with it. Yet, in the US today, something like a third of adults are obese. Did they choose to be so? Not really. If that were the case, then there would always have been such a high rate of obesity, but it’s a radical change from just 30 years ago. So, yes, there’s some element of choice, but I think it’s mostly social structure at work, undermining what is a natural aspect of being human.

 

[tonyrey]

Then why do many lack empathy and compassion?

Feral children seem to put paid to the notion of innate empathy and compassion.

Do you think animal suffering isn’t evil?

It’s an interesting problem for me. I don’t think when the lion eats the gazelle it is evil. That’s just a lion being a lion. But I’m dumbfounded by the suffering that must occur for the gazelle. Note that in this, I, a human, am empathizing with a gazelle–as though the gazelle were human!!! Bizarre. Still, assuming the gazelle suffers the same way, it’s hard for me to think of that as anything but evil. But, I don’t know. Also, were it an amoeba being eaten, I wouldn’t think twice about it. Is it evil? Or is my empathy going haywire? An evolutionary mistake, as another in this thread phrased it.

Suffering is evil only if it is unnecessary because pain is a defence mechanism. To say all suffering is evil presupposes hedonism, i.e. the view that goodness is defined by pleasure. It amounts to condemning nature - and therefore life - as intrinsically evil. Do you believe that?

On the other hand, we know of the horrific things humans do to non-human animals (and humans, too, but setting that aside). That, to me, is evil, if for no other reason than that it’s unnecessary.

You anticipated me! I agree - noting that “unnecessary” implies that not all our behaviour has physical causes.

Does that evil exist aside from the existence of humans? I don’t know.

If things must be as they are then evil doesn’t exist! But could the universe be different?

Doesn’t that suggest life is intrinsically valuable regardless of what people think?

It suggests to me that life is intrinsically valuable because people think it. But, yes, I suspect that to life forms that reflect on themselves and recognize their own mortality, life would appear intrinsically valuable.

Are they justified?

As civilization and, thus, socialization reaches its highest levels, needless suffering and injustice in the world reaches its highest levels.

Is **all **evil due to socialization?

Choice is shaped by social structure, though. I don’t think every choice exists in every social structure. So, yes, there is an element of choice, but it’s secondary to the real problem, which is the social structure itself. For example, I don’t believe anyone would opt to be obese. Who would want the increased morbidity associated with obesity or the stigma associated with it. Yet, in the US today, something like a third of adults are obese. Did they choose to be so? Not really. If that were the case, then there would always have been such a high rate of obesity, but it’s a radical change from just 30 years ago. So, yes, there’s some element of choice, but I think it’s mostly social structure at work, undermining what is a natural aspect of being human.

I agree with you. The question remains as to how we can transcend physical causes…

 

[Jocko_VT]

Feral children seem to put paid to the notion of innate empathy and compassion.

Except that, for example: a) feral children are inevitably damaged human beings (to my understanding); b) that they are “feral” is likely just one characteristic among many (e.g., had they been abused? how did they end up feral? what have been their experiences as a feral child?)–there are many variables at play; and c) and I can easily be proven wrong here and will accept that, but there aren’t that many actual cases of feral children from which to draw any generalization about what we’re discussing, particularly given points a) and b).

Suffering is evil only if it is unnecessary because pain is a defence mechanism. To say all suffering is evil presupposes hedonism, i.e. the view that goodness is defined by pleasure. It amounts to condemning nature - and therefore life - as intrinsically evil. Do you believe that?

I can accept that, with the “unnecessary” addendum below.

You anticipated me! I agree - noting that “unnecessary” implies that not all our behaviour has physical causes.

I don’t agree, but maybe we’re just arguing semantics–am I splitting hairs? What are you saying the cause is if it’s not physical? What’s the distinction you’re making?

If things must be as they are then evil doesn’t exist! But could the universe be different?

My understanding is that there are, in effect, infinite ways the universe could have been. I don’t think any of these possible outcomes affects our discussion–though our position in some other universe very well may have affected how we discussed it!!

But, if we add an infinitely knowing, infinitely powerful creator into the mix, then literally anything is possible, and the universe could have, unequivocally, been different in infinite ways.

Are they justified?

I don’t think they need justification.

Is **all **evil due to socialization?

Setting aside damaged people, psychopaths and sociopaths: I don’t know. It may be. There may be examples that are not, but I’m not coming up with them at the moment. Like I said, I think it’s mostly social structure at work, so I can accept that not *all *evil is due to socialization. I concentrate on the “evil” that’s due to civilization because that’s something I see as a pressing issue (to say the least), and because it flies in the face of the way most people understand morality/immorality, and I think they need to think about it more broadly to recognize that many of their mundane actions have immoral outcomes.

I agree with you. The question remains as to how we can transcend physical causes…

I agree, though I wouldn’t say we were transcending **physical **causes. We’d be tapping into our own innate capabilities (which I believe religion, at its best, does), and we’d be reshaping social structures with an eye not toward economic “progress,” but sustainability and human development.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Just because someone is an atheist or agnostic doesn’t mean they are not human.

We evolved in group settings, early humans lived in small groups/tribes with many relatives.

Helping out pays off both because it makes you more successful by virtue of making your group more successful, but also in the environment we evolved in your neighbor was likely related to you and shared your genes. In helping them, your genes were essentially helping themselves.

Maybe someone from Haiti is not your relative, but your nature doesn’t know that. If we evolved in a setting where people you knew about and saw were your relatives, it would make sense to evolve compassionate tendencies toward others. Now TV and other media makes us feel as though people far away are close to us.

That’s an explanation. As for why help? Because it’s our nature. Bill Gates by the way, is so wealthy that he doesn’t experience any negative consequences from giving huge sums of money. It only makes him feel better about himself.

The explanation I gave would work for self sacrificial donations as well.

You open that because Gates is human, he can be charitable.

Gracious of you.

You close that he probably is motivated by wanting to make himelf feel better.

Spiteful of you and revealingly, small minded of you.

The B & M Foundation is larger than all other private charities combined.

The difficulties of giving money, at that level, are as complex as running a major corporation.

Your summation of his motivations is petty.

 

[tonyrey]

Feral children seem to put paid to the notion of innate empathy and compassion.

If empathy and compassion were innate they wouldn’t disappear utterly. I’m referring to concern for people beyond one’s community.

I agree - noting that “unnecessary” implies that not all our behaviour has physical causes.

I don’t agree, but maybe we’re just arguing semantics–am I splitting hairs? What are you saying the cause is if it’s not physical? What’s the distinction you’re making?

That when we behave rationally we are the ultimate causes of our behaviour.

If things must be as they are then evil doesn’t exist! But could the universe be different?
My understanding is that there are, in effect, infinite ways the universe could have been. I don’t think any of these possible outcomes affects our discussion–though our position in some other universe very well may have affected how we discussed it!!

How could we be in another universe?!

But, if we add an infinitely knowing, infinitely powerful creator into the mix, then literally anything is possible, and the universe could have, unequivocally, been different in infinite ways.

Fair enough.

Are they justified?

I don’t think they need justification.

Why not?

Is all evil due to socialization?

Setting aside damaged people, psychopaths and sociopaths: I don’t know. It may be. There may be examples that are not, but I’m not coming up with them at the moment. Like I said, I think it’s mostly social structure at work, so I can accept that not all evil is due to socialization. I concentrate on the “evil” that’s due to civilization because that’s something I see as a pressing issue (to say the least), and because it flies in the face of the way most people understand morality/immorality, and I think they need to think about it more broadly to recognize that many of their mundane actions have immoral outcomes.

I entirely agree. Most of the suffering in the world is not caused by malice but by ignorance and carelessness.

The question remains as to how we can transcend physical causes…

I agree, though I wouldn’t say we were transcending physical causes. We’d be tapping into our own innate capabilities (which I believe religion, at its best, does), and we’d be reshaping social structures with an eye not toward economic “progress,” but sustainability and human development.

If we don’t transcend physical causes how can we be anything more than instruments?

 

[Jocko_VT]

If empathy and compassion were innate they wouldn’t disappear utterly. I’m referring to concern for people beyond one’s community.

It wouldn’t disappear utterly in the feral child? I think feral children are just that damaged–everyone is beyond the community for them.

If you’re referring to other people, then concern for people beyond one’s community has always been problematic. In modern life, because our actions’ consequences know no limits, it’s even more problematic, because we affect so many people so far away just by, say, driving to the grocery store, buying food at the grocery store, discarding the various wastes that come out of that process, etc. Our moral capacity has, and always has had, a very limited scope–extending only to those consequences which are very apparently following from our actions. People beyond our communities have generally not been within the range of our moral capacity, and for the most part, they still aren’t.

That when we behave rationally we are the ultimate causes of our behaviour.

I think we’re the ultimate causes of our behavior anyway, and that the question or rational or non-rational behavior is a separate issue.

Furthermore, rationality is always bounded. Is it rational to buy food from the grocery? I’d say so. Is it rational to consume in ways that destroy the environment and other peoples’ social lives, and that perpetuate animal brutality? I don’t think so. But, when we buy food from the grocery, we’re typically doing those things.

The problem isn’t intellectual. It’s not our capacity to be rational. It’s our capacity to be moral, and our moral capacity is limited. Just because we know on an intellectual level that our behaviors lend to immoral outcomes doesn’t make us feel as though we’re behaving immorally. We don’t feel responsible for the distant consequences of our consumption habits because they are beyond the scope of our moral capacity, despite our intellectual ability to recognize the problem.

How could we be in another universe?!

Good question. I’m not sure what my point was here!

Fair enough.

Why not?

The same reason we don’t need justification for being air-breathers. Yes, we can explain why we breath–it’s because we need to breath to pull in oxygen so that are bodies can do this and that. We can explain what breathing does, and how it’s essential, but we don’t need to justify the fact that we are air-breathing animals. That’s be cause we just are air-breathing animals! Likewise, we don’t need to justify our morality. It’s what we are.

I entirely agree. Most of the suffering in the world is not caused by malice but by ignorance and carelessness.

…and indifference. And I think that ignorance, carelessness and indifference are consequences of the narrowness of our moral capacity.

If we don’t transcend physical causes how can we be anything more than instruments?

And I would phrase the question as “How can we be anything more than instruments in large social structures?” And that really is the question that confronts us today, isn’t it? I’ll admit that I have little hope. Perhaps physical causes will have to come to our rescue–peak oil, global warming, etc., may force us back into small-scale social structures where our morality is more functional. But, how do we use our intellects to overcome our moral shortcomings when our intellects are what highlighted our moral shortcomings in the first place by creating such large and complex social structures that our morality is impotent in the face of the most immoral outcomes ever known to man??? It’s a dilemma, to be sure.

I think Bill McKibben (Deep Economy) and Michael Pollan (the Omnivore’s Dilemma), for example, are trying to do just this, though. Both explain that the way to overcome our problems is to actively choose to live locally. I’m skeptical, though. I don’t think our intellects can convince us to be moral where our morality fails to function.

 

[tonyrey]

If empathy and compassion were innate they wouldn’t disappear utterly. I’m referring to concern for people beyond one’s community.
It wouldn’t disappear utterly in the feral child? I think feral children are just that damaged–everyone is beyond the community for them.

I think we’re the ultimate causes of our behavior anyway, and that the question or rational or non-rational behavior is a separate issue.We’re the ultimate causes of our behavior only in the sense that it is linked to our body but if we can’t choose what to think or decide how can we behave rationally?

Furthermore, rationality is always bounded. Is it rational to buy food from the grocery? I’d say so. Is it rational to consume in ways that destroy the environment and other peoples’ social lives, and that perpetuate animal brutality? I don’t think so. But, when we buy food from the grocery, we’re typically doing those things.

We are irrational only to the extent of our ignorance of evil and to the extent of our inability to act otherwise. If there is no other source of food then it is a lesser evil to buy it and live fighting against such injustice rather than starve and be a silent accomplice!

The problem isn’t intellectual. It’s not our capacity to be rational. It’s our capacity to be moral, and our moral capacity is limited. Just because we know on an intellectual level that our behaviors lend to immoral outcomes doesn’t make us feel as though we’re behaving immorally. We don’t feel responsible for the distant consequences of our consumption habits because they are beyond the scope of our moral capacity, despite our intellectual ability to recognize the problem.

We are justified in not feeling responsible when we cannot do anything to change the situation. Very often people feel innocent when they’re guilty and guilty when they’re not!

How could we be in another universe?!

Good question. I’m not sure what my point was here!Nor I!

The same reason we don’t need justification for being air-breathers. Yes, we can explain why we breath–it’s because we need to breath to pull in oxygen so that are bodies can do this and that. We can explain what breathing does, and how it’s essential, but we don’t need to justify the fact that we are air-breathing animals. That’s be cause we just are air-breathing animals! Likewise, we don’t need to justify our morality. It’s what we are.

The difference is that we don’t normally deliberately stop breathing but we sometimes deliberately stop being moral, i.e. behave amorally or immorally.

I entirely agree. Most of the suffering in the world is not caused by malice but by ignorance and carelessness.

…and indifference. And I think that ignorance, carelessness and indifference are consequences of the narrowness of our moral capacity.Which are inevitable to a certain extent.

If we don’t transcend physical causes how can we be anything more than instruments?

And I would phrase the question as “How can we be anything more than instruments in large social structures?” And that really is the question that confronts us today, isn’t it? I’ll admit that I have little hope. Perhaps physical causes will have to come to our rescue–peak oil, global warming, etc., may force us back into small-scale social structures where our morality is more functional.It’s already happening. Many people are returning to villages an rural areas. I taught in Africa for fifteen years rather than join the rat-race for promotion.

But, how do we use our intellects to overcome our moral shortcomings when our intellects are what highlighted our moral shortcomings in the first place by creating such large and complex social structures that our morality is impotent in the face of the most immoral outcomes ever known to man!?!? It’s a dilemma, to be sure.

It is but we also have international organizations which are helping to control the situation and the pressure groups I’ve mentioned. This is where the Internet is vital.

I think Bill McKibben (Deep Economy) and Michael Pollan (the Omnivore’s Dilemma), for example, are trying to do just this, though. Both explain that the way to overcome our problems is to actively choose to live locally. I’m skeptical, though. I don’t think our intellects can convince us to be moral where our morality fails to function.

They will when people are made to realise moral corruption destroys the individual and society. There are enough examples in history to convince them but one of the main obstacles is advertising which creates needs and desires that are geared to profits rather than health, sanity and justice.

[/QUOTE]